Substance vs. Style in Science Fiction

Producer Jesse Alexander just wrote up an interesting guest column on website io9 recently, (which you can read here), where he talks about a couple of subjects that I’ve been thinking about lately: the vast difference between substance and visual appeal of the science fiction genre, particularly in movies.

In his piece, he notes that CGI-laden blockbusters have really taken over the movie theaters over the summer season, almost completely. This past summer, we’ve had Terminator 4, Transformers 2, GI Joe, Star Trek, and Harry Potter all costing in the hundreds of millions of dollars to produce from beginning to end, none of which were really all that great, while the two standout movies in the SF genre were Moon and District 9, both of which cost $5 million and $30 million to create, respectively. This begs the question, as Alexander does, where did these two films succeed where the others failed.

The above films all did really well at the box office, grossing back quite a bit of money (although Terminator: Salvation did pretty poorly, but it will warrant a sequel, if the rumors are to be believed) but of everything that was released this summer, only Moon and District 9 really captured the essence of science fiction on all levels. They were wholly original, influences aside, and are the ones that have come out of this summer that will be remembered for a long time as solid entries in the genre’s film side of things.

One of the things that charges are laid against is the use of CGI in films, which has become far more sophisticated and prevalent in films, especially science fiction films. I’m not totally sure that CGI is really the thing to blame here, but the effect that it has on filmmaking and the entire process. CGI is a fantastic tool for filmmakers, especially in the science fiction field. The problem comes when the glamor and expanded visual field overtakes the story in terms of importance.

For me, story is everything with a film or television show, and the Science Fiction genre is a fantastic place for any number of possible stories. There have been a number of fantastic films out there that I can put forward as an example for good storytelling: Minority Report, The Prestige, Serenity, The Fountain, Pan’s Labyrinth, and of course, Moon and District 9. These movies utilized special effects throughout, but did so in a way that didn’t jeopardize the story to the extent that other films might have. A couple of television shows, such as Battlestar Galactica and Firefly have followed much the same philosophy with their approaches to CGI: the visuals are placed in the film/show to support the events in the story.

My favorite example is 2005’s release of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith and Serenity. Both films with significant fanbases, but with very different approaches to the stories. Serenity was a much smaller film, with a killer story to finish up the Firefly TV series, while Revenge of the Sith was a far more bloated and cumbersome film that cost a significant amount of money to produce. Given the financial troubles and uncertainty of the next couple of years, I would bet that that type of filmmaking will continue, but there will be a rise in films such as Moon, Serenity and District 9. Each of these films received a large amount of critical favor, and while none approached the same amount of money that these larger films pulled in, they didn’t cost as much as the much larger films.

One thing about these huge CGI films that I noticed is that the ones this summer were already part of a larger storyline or franchise – there were a lot of numbers after the titles, and I have to wonder if that is part of this empty storytelling trend that Science Fiction seems to have picked up over the past couple decades. I don’t mind sequels – There’s a number of stories out there that I love seeing more of. But, when does a good franchise become a cash cow, with more of the same to it? Transformers was reportedly like that, even up to the director’s level, where more of the same, but just more intense was better. Harry Potter has largely been like this from day one, and Star Trek wasn’t all that impressive after you started thinking about it. This, to me, is a sad thing for the genre, one that I’ve always seen as being far more creative than most of the other genres out there, if only for the exotic subject matter.

There are a couple of things that bother me about this sort of thing, mainly that people are more than happy to take any sort of mind-numbing entertainment and expect nothing more. While this is a bit of a leap, it seems like this is a problem that extends far beyond the entertainment realm, from education to politics. Moon and District 9 worked brilliantly together this summer because they were two films that had intelligent plots, good characterization and an unconventional way of presenting the stories. Despite that, I read a number of reviews that noted that the plots didn’t make sense, that there weren’t enough explosions and the like. These sorts of reviews usually bother me, as they did with reviews about Lev Grossman’s The Magicians, where people just didn’t, or couldn’t understand what the stories were about, and because they didn’t like them, refused to think any more about the subject.

What I am hoping will come out of this is that smaller, cheaper, genre films will become more popular, with producers who are willing to take a little more of a gamble. The films this summer proved that filmmakers could get around expensive effects, by using models, preexisting locations and actors who might not necessarily be as well known. If there are any lessons to be learned from this summer, it is that when a good story is in place, the film can succeed toe to toe with any of the big blockbusters. For me, I’m happy that there’s something out there that’s a little different, a bit challenging and above all, something that makes me think about what I’m watching.

What is Science Fiction?

The Guardian Newspaper posted up an article about the label of Science Fiction when it comes to regular literature. Science Fiction as a broad genre has a number of connotations and images associated with it, for sure, but what exactly is the definition of the grouping?

According to Isaac Asimov, one of the greatest science fiction writers to ever live, Science Fiction is: Modern science fiction is the only form of literature that consistently considers the nature of the changes that face us, the possible consequences, and the possible solutions. (There are some other fantastic takes on this here.)

Over the past couple of years, as I have gotten more interested in the history and study of the genre, I’m leaning more towards an anti-genre sort of bias. I am a fan of the genre, and of the elements that commonly make it up – space ships, time travel, aliens, etc. What I find interesting though, is at how horror, science fiction and fantasy genres are generally grouped together, and how fans from one genre tend to be interested in the others.

According to the Guardian article, there are several authors whose books tend to fall under the SF/F genre heading, but aren’t generally considered part of the genre, either by the publisher or the author. For example, the following paragraph raises some eyebrows:

“The Gone-Away World by Nick Harkaway has just had its paperback release, and is a tour-de-force of ninjas, truckers, Dr Strangelove-type military men, awe-inspiring imagery and very clever writing. It’s also undeniably science fiction. Harkaway is an unrepentant fan of the genre, but his publishers William Heinemann have taken a lot of care not to market the book as such. Harkaway himself said in a recent interview: “I suppose the book does take place in the future, but not the ray-guns-and-silver-suits future. It’s more like tomorrow if today was a really, really bad day.”"

The last sentence is revealing one: “It’s more like tomorrow, if today was a really, really bad day.” Off the top of my head, I can list of a number of science fiction novels and films (Halting State, Children of Men, Wess’Har series, Firefly, etc), where this fits the description perfectly. Science fiction, in my opinion, is little different than most regular fiction, while just taking on a fantastic premise.

Margaret Atwood is somewhat misguided when she states: “Science fiction is rockets, chemicals and talking squids in outer space.”

Science fiction is not just about rockets, chemicals and talking squids in outer space, although these can certainly be elements, but it is not the individual elements that really make up the core of a science fiction story. The core premise is the story. The best science fiction stories, the ones that hold up, are the ones that explore the human condition – not unlike most “literature”. However, these elements do help to define the genre, and, if present in a story, help to define the novel. Stories with things like this are invariably labeled SF/F. It doesn’t necessarily matter what the point of the book is.

Matthew Stover posted an interesting view up on a message board a couple months back:

“Literature is narrative fiction in which the author’s intent is to express his individual vision of a fundamental truth of existence.

[Feel free to substitute other pronouns. I say "his" because, y'know, I'm a guy.]

The label of capital-L “Literature” is not a judgment of quality. It is a statement regarding the author’s objectives. If the author’s objective is simply (not “merely”) to entertain or divert, the work in question is not Literature. It’s still small-L literature (by definition), but that’s not really what we’re talking about. (I use the capital L to keep the distinction clear.)

And there’s plenty of crummy Literature out there. It may be bad, but it’s Literature nonetheless. “

At this definition, at a very broad angle, this encompasses a majority of SF/F genre stories, and separates out the ones that are essentially tie-in novels. The split is at the point where the view is either the author’s, or someone else’s. I’m content with this definition, because I’ve never seen the term Literature as something that automatically means quality. From there, everything can be broken down into the general elements that help to qualify the book. Science fictional type books tend to be grouped together with the ones that have the space ships, the aliens and things like that, but, above all, the story is such that the reader needs to be able to accept the premise, no matter what the story elements are. Battlestar Galactica and Firefly are two television shows that really did a good job at this – they took a situation, and focused on the way the characters reacted. Ron Moore has said that they didn’t want to do a science fiction show, but they wanted a drama in space. It has science fiction elements, but that’s not the focus.

Now, that might not be the main focus of these books that the Guardian has laid out, but they do contain science fiction elements. The article cites Jeanette Winterson with the following quote:

“”People say to me, ’so is the Stone Gods science fiction?’ Well, it is fiction, and it has science in it, and it is set (mostly) in the future, but the labels are meaningless. I can’t see the point of labeling a book like a pre-packed supermarket meal. There are books worth reading and books not worth reading. That’s all.”"

I think she hit the nail on the head – essentially, it doesn’t matter what the book’s label is to the reader or storyteller – these labels seem to be more a thing concocted by publishers and booksellers in order to target certain audiences who might be more inclined to buy something with weird aliens and space ships as opposed to something else. That being said, even though Cormac McCarthy’s The Road wasn’t published or marketed as such, it’s still gained quite a bit of a following in the SF/F genre crowd.

I’ll always be a fan of the SF/F label though, despite the elitism and mockery that it might get – it’s really the only genre that has a real geek following, and no matter the status that the genre gets from other authors and critics, it is still one of the sources, for me, of some of the best literature out there.

December is SciFi Month

I know exactly when my tastes in Science Fiction and Fantasy began to change to what they are today – December, 2003. While driving a friend up Burlington, we stopped by the University Mall in South Burlington, ostensibly to do some Christmas shopping. Earlier that week, I was reading a copy of SciFi Magazine, which had run a review of the recently released Firefly DVD set. It had an outstanding review, and with a little more followup research on Amazon.com, I was stunned to see this with a full five star review almost universally. I hadn’t seen any of the show, so picking it up from the mall that day was a somewhat whim purchase. It looked interesting, and with the coming vacation, I would have plenty of time to watch it.

When I returned home, I sat down and watched the first episode. It wasn’t until a couple minutes into the show, after the opening introduction that the show hooked me, hard. There was something about it – the superior CGI, witty dialog and interesting storytelling that I really hadn’t seen in a whole lot of television shows before. To be fair, I hadn’t really watched a lot of SciFi TV prior to this – some Stargate, some Star Trek, but not a whole lot beyond that. For the next three days, I watched the entire series, bouncing around the house humming the theme song, before telling my siblings about the show and marathoned it with them over the next couple days.

I can extoll the virtues of the show endlessly. After Star Wars, Firefly became a new series for me to completely obsess over. Watching the show from that point, and eventually watching the commentaries, I began to view science fiction in a far different manner than I had before. Whedon’s technical commentaries on how the show was shot – how they did the lighting, what the dialog meant, and how the characters came to be – as well as seeing something completely different – made me begin to look at television and how science fiction should be in a far more critical level.

Shortly on the heels of Firefly came a second franchise that I like just as much – the 2003 version of Battlestar Galactica, which was released as a pilot miniseries in December. I watched it after reading several articles (again from SciFi Magazine) and like Firefly, fell completely for the show, but in a different way. Like Firefly, Galactica presented a non-conventional approach to space sci-fi with its presentation and storytelling, and I really liked that, along with the fantastic CGI, characters and stories.

Both shows are rarities in the genre. There are very few shows that have similar content, which is a huge shame. I like space ships, visiting new planets, especially in the manner that Battlestar Galactica and Firefly went about it. A third show that I came across several months later, Farscape is also up there.

The way that I viewed these shows percolated down to other elements of how I viewed television shows, movies, books and comics. I began to take in these while paying far more attention to the story, characters and the smaller details that I’d previously missed or never paid a whole lot of attention to. Instead of taking things at face value, liking things simply for the sake of liking them, a critical perspective helps to fully realize and enjoy the story for all of its points.

So, this December, I’ll be back to my roots and revisiting some of my more favorite episodes. It’s liely been a year or so since I’ve actually sat down to watch an episode of Firefly, and it’s been a while since I’ve watched Battlestar Galactica. It will be a fitting thing to do as that paticular show draws to a close with the final season this spring.

Blarg

Taking two 100 level classes and a 200 level class has it’s advantages and disadvantages. Advantage 1 : The work is brainless and easy. Especially Politics. Disadvantage 1: Everyone else in the class is a freshman with no brain. Or they just ask incredibly stupid questions.

And a fan in my computer is making a lot more noise than it should be. It’s irritating, and I can’t figure out how to make it stop. Gah!

Firefly marathon with the Tactics club is today, right now in fact. I’m taking a short break for lunch while people are there and will be back in a bit to close everything out and catch another episode or two. People actually showed up, which is good. I’m thrilled with the Tactics club this year. It’s really taken off and become a real club.

Depressing News

I just read some kinda saddening news on the SciFiWire this morning: There will be no more Firefly, according to Joss Whedon. However, that doesn’t mean the end of stories from that universe:

Whedon: No More Firefly
Firefly/Serenity creator Joss Whedon told USA Today that he still hopes to tell more stories set in the futuristic universe, but added that there’s no chance he’ll do another Firefly TV show. “We’ll never make Firefly again, because that was a thing that existed and is now gone,” Whedon told the newspaper before Christmas. “And Serenity isn’t Firefly, and whatever comes next won’t be, either. But I would love to tell more stories of this universe and to hang out with these people on and off for the rest of my career.”
Serenity, based on the canceled Fox TV show Firefly, hit theaters last September and has pulled in a disappointing $25.4 million domestically since opening Sept. 30, 2005. The movie is now available on DVD.
“The best-case scenario is that the DVD is such a spectacular, monster hit that we get to make another movie,” Whedon said. “Then we get to make another movie. After three movies, we’re all very tired. After Serenity: Revolutions, we feel like we’ve played it out. And then we make another series.”
Whedon is currently writing the script for Wonder Woman, which he is slated to direct once Warner Brothers signs off.

Let’s hope that there will be more from him someday about this.

Info on an Unfilmed Firefly Episode

I was surprised when I saw this – it’s been three years since the show went off the air, and while I knew of one episode script that was up online, but not this concept. It does certainly seem to explain one thing that popped up in the show that was still unexplained with the movie: What was Inara doing with that needle in the first episode just before the reaver attack?

Here’s what came up on a couple of websites:

What were some of the Firefly stories you never got to tell? He hemmed and hawed, “Should I tell you this?… Oh well, what’s he going to do, fire me?” The original show was darker and this story was more in keeping with that tone.
It opens with Mal and Inara fighting (as they do). Mal tells her she pretends to be a lady and wants everyone to bow before her and kiss her hand but she’s just a whore. Then the Reavers attack and take Inara. While trying to get her back they learn that she had something that would make anyone who had sex with her die. When they finally track down and board the ship they find all of the Reavers dead and Inara shaking and traumatized.
They take her back to the ship and Zoe guards her room. Mal tries to get in to see her and Zoe tells him he’s the last person Inara needs to see. He pushes past her, kneels before Inara and kisses her hand.
Of course someone asked, “Is that what the syringe [that Inara gets out when the Reavers approach in the pilot episode] was for?” To which he replied, “I don’t know. Next question.”

That is an extremely dark thing, even for Firefly. Also, considering that there was some intentions for a trilogy of movies, and of the various storylines that we had hanging off of the series to movie, one, River’s storyline made up the bulk of the movie, two, Book’s storyline was ended with Book’s death, Inara’s/Mal’s storyline, along with that needle thing, and a couple other random ones that I can’t think of. I’d go and rewatch Firefly this week, but I’m going through the entire run of Farscape. Currently on Season 2 out of Four + the miniseries.

Quote!

When you see this on your flist, quote Firefly.

Mal: “Well look at this! Looks like we arrived in a nick of time. What does that make us?”
Zoe: “Big Damn Heroes sir!”
Mal: “Ain’t we just.”

Jayne: [into radio] Testing. Captain, can you hear me?
Mal: I’m standing right here.
Jayne: [into radio] You’re coming in good and loud, too.
Mal: ‘Cause I’m standing right here.

Jayne: You know what the chain of command is? It’s the chain I go get and beat you with until you understand who’s in ruttin’ command here. Now we’re finishing this deal, and then maybe maybe we’ll come back for those morons who got themselves caught.

Jayne: Time for some thrilling heroics.

[after slashing Jayne with a knife] River: He looks better in red.

Mal: Ah, the pitter-patter of little feet in combat boots… SHUT UP.

Jayne: Let’s move this conversation in a not-Jayne’s-fault direction.

Zoë: We’re getting him back.
Jayne: [staring at Mal's severed ear] What are we going to do – clone him?

Mal: If someone tries to kill you, you just try and kill ‘em right back!

Firefly Soundtrack- OUT NOW!

Fox has released a Firefly Soundtrack! It’s a downloadable format, picky, and apparently lacking in a couple songs, but we now have a series soundtrack! I’m planning on getting it later today, and I’ll post up my own review, but here’s the track listing:


1- Firefly – Main Title
2- Big Bar Fight
3- Heart of Gold Montage
4- Whitefall/Book
5- Early takes Serenity
6- The Funeral
7- Rivers perception/Saffron
8- Mal fights Niska/Back home
9- River tricks Early
10- River understands Simon
11- Leaving/Caper/Spaceball
12- Rivers afraid/Niska/Book
13- In my bunk/Rivers eyes/Boom
14- Inaras Suite
15- Deserted Ship/Empty Derelict
16- Books hair/Ready for Battle
17- Goodbye Early

They’re missing the Hero of Canton, which is a shame, but it looks like a good lineup. Unfortunently, I can’t access the main website, because none of these fucking school computers have Flash.

Random Things

First, some very interesting things from Chris Buchanan on the official Firefly boards. It looks like a Firefly soundtrack is seriously in the works!

I can confirm that serious discussions about a “Firefly” soundtrack are taking place. Long time coming, I know! Stay tuned.

Outstanding news! The Firefly music is some of the more interesting TV music that I’ve ever really listened to, with a huge variety of sound, from folk, world and random other things thrown in. It’ll be a certain pickup for any fan, that’s for sure.

Other things. A while ago, I found a trailer for a movie called Elizabethtown, starring Orlando Bloom and Kirstin Dunst. On the first viewing, it was a little bit of a turn off, because I’m not really one for romantic movies. However, a trailer was released, more of a feature, on the music, and through that, they showed a bit of the movie and what it was about. Much more interested this time around. Looking more closely at it, it reminds me quite a bit of Garden State, one of my favorite movies. From what I’ve found out about it, a guy has a bad turn of luck. The company that he runs fails due to mistakes, and he’s out of a job. On top of that, he learns that his father died, over in Kentucky, and he goes out to get his body to bring it home. There, he meets a number of relatives and sees a completely different side to his family. On the plane ride over, he meets a flight attendant, played by Dunst, who he falls in love with and as a result, pulls his life together.
Sounds and feels very similar to Garden State, which is a huge plus for this. Not sure about Bloom, although he could pull through and do some decent acting. Plot’s a little lacking, but it could very well be interesting. Some of the imagry, like the on the road parts look very well done. The soundtrack is also extremely well done, well thought out and picked out, another very cool thing. I picked it up this morning, and it’s proving to be an excellent listen. I’ll probably end up seeing this sometime when it comes out.

Now, for homework.

14 Days until Serenity! And thus starts the epic Firefly Marathon. Starting with the pilot episode: Serenity.

The Phoenix Phenomenon

Who heard about a little show called Firefly three years ago? How about recently?

Okay, for those of you who don’t know anything about this, listen up: Firefly was a short lived show that FOX aired during the fall of 2002, and quickly cancelled it after 11 episodes. The show, created by Joss Whedon, who was also the creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, centered upon a group of misfits in space, on board a little pile of scrap called Serenity. In the first episode, the crew picks up a pair of siblings, Simon, a naïve doctor and River, his psychic and sometimes insane sister. They also pick up a guy named Dobson and a preacher named Book. Dobson’s later shot in the face, but he wasn’t important. Rounding out the rest of the crew is Mal, the captain, Wash, the pilot, Inara, the ‘Companion’ (A high class prostitute), Kaylee, the ship’s mechanic, Zoë, Mal’s second mate and Jayne, the ship’s gun expert. Together, they have their various adventures, although now, the interstellar government is now after River and Simon. Sound like fun? FOX didn’t seem to think so.

So why has Firefly died, and now coming back as a feature film called Serenity?

The main and simple answer: The fan community, who call themselves Browncoats.

While Firefly was still on the air, it gathered a fairly small but extremely devoted group of fans, who a) knew what a good show was, and b) knew how to tell people. Unfortunately, it wasn’t enough to keep the show online due to poor ratings. However, it was when the DVD was released that the show really took off. The DVD Boxed set, available at Amazon.com and anywhere you can buy movies, became gold and quickly sold out in some places, taking some people by surprise.

It was also enough to spurn Joss and crew to begin looking for a new home for Firefly, and a feature film, called Serenity, went into the works, this time under Universal Films, which owns the SciFi channel. Great news. The fan community went nuts, and support for the film and series grew. When the first trailer hit, the Firefly boxed set jumped from about 200 on the amazon.com charts to the top twenty for science fiction DVDs. Two out of three comics have been released to stores, which have also sold out and gone to reprints due to demand. Actors in the movie and series have gone on film and told us that it was our support that brought the movie to life. For once, it pays to be a fan of something. And now, we have something cool to watch again.

This is probably the first time that a movie has been made out of a TV series that was cancelled due to poor ratings. But it’s not the first time that outcry from a fan community has brought back their special show.
During the winter of 2004, Farscape came back in spectacular fashion as a SciFi channel miniseries. Farscape was another TV show, this one run by the SciFi channel, which was cancelled due to lower than desired ratings. Farscape had a more successful run than Firefly did, burning through four full seasons before it was pulled. Once again, the fan community pulled itself together and websites formed that brought the show back to life in a similar, but new form.

This doesn’t seem to work all the time though. Anyone watch Enterprise? That show was on for several full seasons as well, and despite being on a broad access channel, it was pulling in lower ratings than the SciFi channel’s new Battlestar Galactica. (SciFi doesn’t reach as many people) We saw the same thing here; a small, dedicated group of fans came together, made webpages, went to conventions, wrote letters and all the usual things, even went to the point of trying to finance the show themselves, but only to have the show cut completely.

Why did Firefly and Farscape succeed where Enterprise failed? Surely not because Firefly and Farscape both begin with the letter F, where Enterprise begins with an E. There’s a number of other reasons and influences that probably caused those to continue whereas Enterprise did not.

First, Enterprise is a Star Trek show. They’ve been around forever, and have been one of the main influences on how Science Fiction TV is perceived. It’s huge, and when something like that starts to go wrong, people realize it, and back off. This happened with Enterprise, which started off strong, but lost a huge part of its audience quickly. Firefly and Farscape, on the other hand, were fairly new. The main reasons that they succeeded were mainly because they both had to work extremely hard to expand the audience AFTER they went off the air. This can probably be attributed to the quality of both shows, which are well written and acted. Enterprise was still on the air, had been on for longer and already had enough bad press against it that it was becoming hard to find a bigger audience.
Second, Star Trek has been around for a very long time, and has gone through a number of incarnations in the form of TV shows, movies, books and computer games. It’s essentially flooded the market. People are looking for something else, something new. This is probably one of the reasons why shows such as Stargate and Battlestar have surpassed Enterprise in the ratings game. In addition, it’s also fairly easy for Paramount to begin work on yet another incarnation of Star Trek, in hopes that this one will be better for the fan community. I wouldn’t hold my breath yet, but you never know…

Finally, Firefly and Farscape were highly original shows. They broke a number of the rules in science fiction up to that point and backed it up with some incredible stories, acting and set work that was completely different than Star Trek. The same goes for Battlestar Galactica, which seems to show that the networks have finally realized what a good thing is.

So, while you go to watch Serenity in theaters later in September, remember that it was a huge uphill battle that was mainly fueled by the fan’s enthusiasm and sheer energy that brought it to the big screen. As they said in the show: We’ve done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.
Well said.