[EMAIL PROTECTED] Worth a serious ponder.
> http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,72192-0.html > > Hollywood Eats Sci-Fi's Brains > > By Jason Silverman > > Nov, 29, 2006 > > > It took six years for Darren Aronofsky to get his mystic science-fiction > film The Fountain to the big screen, and just five days for it to tank at > the box office. > > Made for an estimated $35 million, The Fountain earned a paltry $5 million > over the long Thanksgiving weekend. Those numbers mark a huge > disappointment for Warner Bros. and Aronofsky, and another grievous wound > for serious-minded sci-fi. > > Hollywood has all but stopped producing challenging sci-fi films like The > Fountain. Instead, Tinseltown funnels more and more resources into > mega-budget, formula-driven and generally mediocre superhero and fantasy > films. > > In an era of dwindling sci-fi cinema, 2006 has been an especially dire > year. Subtract the superhero and video game adaptations, and what's left? > The Fountain, Universal Studios' upcoming Children of Men and independents > like The Science of Sleep and A Scanner Darkly - films that some purists > wouldn't call sci-fi at all. > > Why has Hollywood stopped making serious sci-fi? According to Gordon > Paddison, New Line Cinema's executive vice president of new media and > marketing, it is all about risk and money. Paddison described Hollywood > financing as formula-driven: Films with the potential to travel well > across borders score the highest points. > > "Sci-fi is hard to fund - it's never a slam-dunk," said Paddison, who > helped launch campaigns for the Lord of the Rings trilogy. He also said > the system is geared toward films with huge effects. > > "Regrettably, there's a barrier to entry," he said. "You have to put a > certain level of budget into these films. You have to swing for the > fences, otherwise you just aren't in the game at all." > > If sci-fi has always been hit-or-miss with studios, investors these days > seem less willing to gamble. Who knows if The Terminator, for example, > could have gotten the green light in this environment? It was made in 1984 > for $6 million - the kind of midrange budget that rarely exists any more - > and starred a little-known weight lifter with an unpronounceable name. > > Star Wars, a monumental struggle for George Lucas to produce, would likely > be a non-starter these days. Blade Runner? Perhaps too dark to get > financing. And 2001: A Space Odyssey? With its cast of unknowns, enigmatic > ending and (in inflation-adjusted figures) more than $50 million budget, > it just wouldn't compute with today's backers. > > By neglecting true sci-fi, Hollywood may be missing a bet. Nearly 25 years > after Blade Runner and eight after The Matrix, the film industry is filled > with talented geeks - filmmakers, writers and special-effects whizzes - > who grew up on Hollywood sci-fi and fantasy and who understand the power > of new digital tools to re-imagine the universe. > > The material's out there. Technology's encroachment into the human sphere > - a constant theme of sci-fi - is on everybody's minds. There are plenty > of subjects: nanotech, genetic engineering, space elevators, the expanding > knowledge of the universe, digital invasions of privacy, our imperiled > environment. The Fountain explores, among other more esoteric stuff, > mortality in an age of high-tech medicine. > > As for the audiences? If they'll flock to the theaters for Al Gore's > PowerPoint lecture, you'd hope they'd show up for good, smart, > science-based fiction. > > Still, even as science becomes more intricately woven into our daily > lives, Hollywood steers sci-fi from the real toward the abstract, from > fact toward fantasy. > > "I think that after 9/11 people seek more escapist fare," said James > O'Ehley, creator of the Sci-Fi Movie Page. "(And) in this irrational era > it is easier for cinema audiences to accept more superstitious or > nonscientific things such as, let's say, a boy flying on a broomstick." > > Boy wizards, hobbits and guys in tights do sometimes make for great > profits and, more occasionally, satisfying viewing. But a diet consisting > of too many of these sweets may be giving the movie industry a bellyache. > > The two biggest genre films of the year, Superman Returns and X-Men: The > Last Stand, together cost about a half billion to bring to American > theaters. It's not clear how profitable they will be, even though each > pulled in more than $200 million at the U.S. box office. > > The emphasis on bigger films also means fewer films, leaving sci-fi fans > with dwindling options. They can tune into Battlestar Galactica, try and > catch the indie and foreign titles for the week or two they play in > theaters (anyone out there see Renaissance? Or Night Watch?), rent The > Matrix again or do their best to enjoy the blockbuster of the week. > > Paddison suggests that sci-fi cinema is merely dormant, not dead. Studios > are in the process of figuring out how to reach what he called the "native > digital" audiences, sci-fi fans that grew up online and who now spend > their time at YouTube and MySpace. > > "The Gene Roddenberry form of sci-fi was the accepted template for years > and years, the vision of what the future was to be for many, many people," > he said. "Then it evolved into the horror sequences of Alien. So what is > it now? What are we and our children fantasizing about?" > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
