Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Space Command Team Answers Your Questions

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the set-phasers-to-inform dept.

Sci-Fi 32

Last week you got a chance to ask the team behind Space Command about their project and all things sci-fi. Marc Zicree, Doug Drexler, David Raiklen, and Neil Johnson were nice enough to put down the blasters and answer a handful of your best questions. David even answered one of his own! Read below to see what they had to say.Opinion on the State of Sci-Fi in Film?
by eldavojohn

To each of you, what is your opinion on the current state of science fiction in today's films? Obviously, there's been an increase in all film categories with more movies coming out but what do you like and dislike about films in this era? Care to comment the remake of Total Recall? Or 3D in blockbusters like Avatar?

Marc: I think there are some very strong directors working in science fiction films, such as Ridley Scott and James Cameron, and although you can fault some of their recent films they’re pushing the technological envelope in ways that make it easier and easier for considerably lower budgeted filmmakers to provide amazing special effects and production values. I’m very pleased science fiction is consistently popular as a genre and happy to learn from my brother writers, producers, directors and actors.

Neil: I am very happy that Sci-Fi is currently becoming cool again It all goes in waves and it seems Sci-Fi is back in for the moment That being said, for me personally, this is all I ever think about day and night. My head is always in the stars. Remake movies to me is cowardice on behalf of people who finance films (and who can blame them- I myself am guilty also). To be original seems to be a hard thing to ask for.

David: I love that there are science fiction elements in popular films. Science Fiction and Fantasy always have an overlap, and have led the box office for years. The mix usually favors fantasy for story, sci-fi for design. In fact, you can add superhero films into the mix, they also have sci-fi and fantasy elements. I like a bit more science in my science fiction than most film/tv today. 3D is here to stay, and can become a story telling technique, like in Hugo.

Doug: I think the best science fiction isn't for everyone. Growing up, I remember that I took a certain pride that the mass market did not appreciate it. It was a private club. If you enjoyed it, you were weird. The fact that you enjoyed it said something about you. You were unusual, and did not follow the crowd. A story that Gene Roddenberry told was how his father apologized to the neighbors the night Star Trek premiered. That's cool.

The era of the science fiction blockbuster began with Star Wars. I think that SW hurt as much as helped. When something is that big, people who have a disdain for the genre become interested for the wrong reasons, which brings with it it's own problems. It also results in the genre being squeezed into a narrow mold.

I think that 3D is as inevitable as sound was, and then color. To see a top flight film maker like Martin Scorcese employing 3D , you realize that this time it's here to stay, and has become a legitimate film making tool.

Ultimately a lot of good science fiction films have gotten made in spite of mass market acceptance, so I wouldn't say that I am complaining, I'm simply observing.



Question.
by Anonymous Coward

Of all the things that have to be done to make a good movie (Script, acting, cinematography...), when it comes to Science Fiction, probably the most important is creating a consistent universe. How did you go about trying to do that - did you consciously set down an write a "Bible" or did you just wing it?

Marc: Having written for many science fiction shows, including Star Trek – The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Babylon 5, Sliders and so on, I feel it’s vital to have a sense of the universe you’re writing in and where you’re going. With Magic Time – which started as a two-hour pilot and grew into three novels (with a fourth down the road) – I had to really know what I was up to. In terms of Space Command, before we ever announced the project I had already written a series bible with background on the history and major characters, outlined the first three films, planned the fourth and had written most of the first two-hour script. Space Command is an epic story that spans many years, and it’s imperative I treat that responsibility with respect. As you write, inspiration can definitely come and you can find marvelous surprises, but many shows suffer because the writers have no idea where they’re going.

Neil: It is all about creating a bible. We must be solid about what has come before and where things are going, otherwise it can end up in a fuddle after a few films (or TV show episodes). Recent TV shows that have been great, but suffered from terrible conclusions probably didn't have a strong enough story bible. That being said, a bible should evolve and change once you have a few films or episodes under your belt even Star Wars "evolved" into what we have now

David: Marc is a genius at writing Bibles, it really makes all the difference to have a coherent story arc that spans episodes. The most important thing is characters that we actually care about. But the Universe they live in gives us room to expand and explore without contradicting the early stories. And provides room for novels, games, even fan films to join in. Bible and transmedia go hand in hand. So the story grows, but stays true to a vision.

Doug: Marc has written a bible based on our discussions, our likes and dislikes. There is always a certain amount of "winging it", and that is part of the fun. Just like life, your universe evolves and grows on it's own. At least you hope so. I think that in order to be great, that's a prime ingredient. That's what one means when they say something has taken on a life of it's own. That's really exciting.



How do you sustain it?
by mattr

What is your sustainable funding and distribution model, and do you see any potential interaction with commercial spaceflight endeavors?

Neil: Distribution methods have changed dramatically in the last 6 years. Blu ray was unheard of a while ago, and Video On Demand was not anything to worry about. My last film, Alien Armageddon was the number 1 Independent film on Video On Demand in it's first month or release. My first film, back in the 90's went to number 7 in the Blockbuster Top Ten in the UK(on VHS). These days, that film would probably not even get released. As far as spaceflight endeavors? We have a responsibility as film makers to inspire a future generation of spacefarers. Most people at NASA were inspired by Star Trek now. who is left. We hope to take up the torch and inspire a new generation of astronauts and scientists

David: I'm no expert on intellectual property business models. Neil is great at this. But I do see that creators have to adapt to changing technology, without getting hurt by unforeseen or unintended consequences. For example, downloads made it tricky to earn a living, though it does offer freedom to those who can mount a successful marketing campaign and create a large fan following. Commercial spaceflight may fit in the picture. Science Fiction helped make spaceflight possible, and can inspire people to go into Space for exploration and fun. Maybe science fiction is a place to show spaceflight ads. The rise of private space ventures is great. But public programs are important too. It's benefits mankind.

Doug: This new age of Internet funding and distribution is largely unexplored. I think the studios have no idea how to use it yet. Their power has always been based on having control of the technology, and the distribution of films, and that model is being shattered. Today, anyone on the street has the potential to reach a massive audience.

Being able to instantly interact with the audience is also changing the way films are funded. We've seen a version of that happening for many years in public television. It can result in more sophisticated fare, because you can appeal to a niche audience. We saw that in television of the 1950s when TV was only available to the well to do, who had more sophisticated tastes. Beacause of this, New York was a hotbed of sophisticated live drama, which gave birth to writers like Paddy Cheyevsky, and Rod Serling.

Is it sustainable? That is yet to be discovered. We've had a modest success raising money for Space Command. Actually better than we expected. I suppose that if enough people like what we do, and we are unique enough to keep folks coming back to fund us, we'll be able to continue creating.



Will it follow recent trends?
by hort_wort

I've noticed that scifi shows these days tends to come in two categories: those that make fun of themselves to be funny and those that try to be realistic by being dark and miserable. Will Space Command conform to these recent trends? Or will we finally see a return to a plot that doesn't toy with the viewers emotions?

Neil: We don't want to be bland emotionally, however, being dark and miserable is now a trend of the mid 2000's, and this time has passed. There is enough to be miserable about, and we want to bring back, hope, adventure, and excitement. It's all about real people striving to do heroic things

David: Dystopian stories have been around forever. It's easier to make a dark, miserable future, you just think "what if things go wrong". People striving to be their best, and succeeding, can be very dramatic and entertaining. But it won't be easy to get there. We respect the audience, you guys are smart, we'll give you smart, fun adventures that you can believe in.

Doug: We love funny, but we aren't planning to do outright comedy. "Dark and edgy"... not really our thing. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "toying" with viewers emotions. Naturally you always want to engage peoples emotions. As far as toyed with... I feel toyed with when plotlines are left unresolved, a promising show is cancelled before it's given a chance to find it's audience, and wrestling and ghosthunters displace science fiction on a science fiction network.



Could fans support their favourite shows?
by AmiMoJo

In your case you put together a proposal for a film and found the funding for it, but do you think this sort of technique could be used to fund existing franchises that are in danger of being cancelled? Personally I would love to have been able to fund another series or movie of Stargate Universe. Would it be best for the fans to start such an effort, or should it come from the producers of the show? It might be a hard sell if the fans were just asking for another series without any hint of what it might contain, which could only come from the producers.

Neil: having an great fan community worked back in the days of Star Trek to helps more seasons, but recently with Serenity, it was very disappointing that the network people just don't get it. Also with Stargate Universe what a fascinating show! I think it all has to do with the advertising dollar and the cost per minute. Reality TV does well initially and is cheap to produce, but who feels like sitting through a reality show from the mid 90's on DVD these days? But Star Trek, Next Generation is getting a whole new HD remaster for Blu ray, and the Twilight Zone still as cool as the day it aired. Most people think of the initial dollar and don't go past this, but in 20 years time, we will still all be watching reruns of Star Trek and Galactica, while other, cheaper shows will be forgotten. I think the producers are often just puppets to the people who hold the real dollar value that is why we are into kickstarter cutting out the middle men and bringing it all to the people.

David: There just aren't many science fiction fans among executives at the companies that control the rights to science fiction shows like Stargate, or Firefly. Even if there were, they have to show a big audience. If there's a big enough fan following to get the attention of the studio, or one of the very top creators insists, there could be a new movie or series. It took decades to get Star Trek back on air. We made a great classic Star Trek episode "World Enough and Time", check it out. Maybe Stargate could do the same. The future is with creator owned series, that can find alternative ways to get made and seen. Isaac Asimov said that he wouldn't trade his fans for those of a bigger selling author. His fans were smart and loyal! Kickstarter is the new way for people to support shows.

Doug: That may be difficult to do that within the studio system, where they spend as much on lunch as we do to make an entire episode. A single hour episode from the studio can cost as much as three million dollars. We're hoping we can raise 200k by the time the Kickstarter project is done. On the other hand, we're certain that we can make it look like a million.



What themes will be dealt with?
by briester

What is the premise of your story? What universal human themes will you deal with? What questions are you asking about life, the universe, and everything? And how is the setting 'in spaaaace!' going to help you ask these questions? I've read that some notable sci-fi writers are providing inspiration for the show, so I'd love to hear what sort of message your show will ultimately turn that inspiration into.

Doug: Marc is in the midst of writing the first episode, and I haven't gotten in his way. I don't want to disturb that flow.

Once I read the script, Marc may become uncomfortable when my guys and I begin to suggest different ways to approach things, but I've always found Marc to be open. Our department is on a slightly different wavelength, and we will almost certainly suggest avenues that Marc will not have thought of. I think that Galactica benefited by including the VFX department in story. We eat, drink and sleep science fiction from another region, and our accent can be pretty sexy.

Why "spaaaace!"? Human beings are at their most interesting, and discover more about themselves when they hang their asses on the line. Life is more delicious when we are frightened, but go on in spite of it. The thrilling uncertainty that comes with the frontier is wasabi, and you know what that's about.



What Science Fiction or Fantasy are you reading?
by Cragen

Is reading SFF is a factor in the SFF Movie Industry producers such as yourselves? If so, what Science Fiction or Fantasy are you reading right now? Or What has been, so far, your favorite SFF book? And (Or) who is your favorite SFF author? Thanks for the great memories of watching your stuff the first time.

Neil: I am a big Star Wars fan, but this will NOT be Star Wars flavored. HG Wells is my all time favorite, as well as Arthur C. Clark, Asimov, Ray Bradbury (I daily mourn their loss) and more recently I am into Stephen Baxter. His novel The Time Ships is an official sequel to The Time Machine, and I truly love it. have read it six times.

David: Wells, Heinlein, Bradbury, Asimov, Clarke, Silverberg, Niven, Kress, King(he counts in SF), Baxter, and Zicree. There's so many great stories, brilliant bits. Here's an example: “It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief” - Alfred Bester

Doug: Reading science fiction, IMO, is very important. I have to admit that I don't get to do as much recreational reading as I used to, because I am so consistently employed in a business that is way beyond 9 to 5, and that is all consuming. I have no free time. My favorite authors are Bradbury, Ellison, Asimov, Burroughs, Heinlein, Serling, Feldstein\Gaines and Wells. I would have turned out a different person without them.



Hard sci fi or Soft sci fi?
by vlm

Hard sci fi or Soft sci fi? There are no hard sci fi movies, at least from the past 20 years, or at least soft sci fi outnumbers hard sci fi by about 200 to 1. In books I'd dare say the ratios approach 50:50 or at least not as intensely skewed.

Your kickstarter page lists Asimov and Clarke as partial inspiration implies hard sci fi, yet also has PR stuff about how people "like the look" which implies ultra-soft sci fi.


Neil: Personally I like hard Sci-Fi, and also stuff like Dune which is strong in character and history. For the people to enjoy your show, there must be some character, life and humanity, but hard Sci-Fi is where it's at!!!

David: When I started reading science fiction, I first understood hard scifi. Then soft sci fi. Now I like both styles blended. In the 50s it was mostly hard sci fi, and that's the look you see in Space Command. We consult NASA and JPL people to get it right!

Doug: Hard sci fi doesn't fly well in the age of blockbusters and mass market. That's part of the reason for our striking out on our own. People enjoy both blends, and we will certainly be pouring both. We aren't mass market, so we will have greater freedom to explore. Hopefully we will be given the opportunity to do so by you folks out there.



Submitting ideas
by LongearedBat

Will there be a way to volunteer new ideas? For example... new alien species, planets, technologies, etc.

There might be some great new concepts "out there" by people who are not involved with the movie industry.


Neil: In my opinion, this will come to pass. YOU are our audience, and we want to listen. in the same way that Star Trek used to take material from unsolicited sources (fans, etc), we want to be open to these ideas. How this will happen is yet to be determined, because this production method is an evolving model. That being said, we have some amazing writers onboard who REALLY care, and they can write!

David: We're open to ideas, and you can actually get a planet named for you as a reward. Fan art is already appearing, and fan films will happen too. This is an interactive process, and we really do read all the mail.

Doug: Absolutely, in fact this process has already begun on our Facebook page.



Will there be auditions?
by WSOGMM

If one were interested in acting on the show, how could he or she get involved?

Neil: We have a talent search for 2 roles in the film series starting right now checkout the webpage.

David: What Neil said!

Doug: Yes. Check our Kickstarter and Facebook page for details about our talent search.



Hollywood accounting
by vlm

Comment on how "Hollywood accounting" and "kickstarter accounting" interact with each other, if at all.

Neil: As someone who has been screwed by Hollywood accounting, I think that is a problem in all large organizations. We endeavor to put as much money onto the screen as possible. PLUS, what may not be known, but we ourselves are investing a great deal of our own money into this. We are putting our money where our mouths are. We don't want to waste anything. We are risking all we have for Space Command.

David: The idea here is to forgo the Hollywood model and be transparent as possible.



How are you scoring this?

David: I'm glad you asked a music question! (or was that me?) We're going to blend live orchestra and state of the art electronics. We believe in having the greatest musicians in the world performing together to create a unique sound and emotion for this series. And there will be melody. A theme that you can hum to liven your day. There will be tips of the hat to classic scores like Day The Earth Stood Still and Twilight Zone, and lots of fun bits for soundtrack fans. We're inventing a new instrument to be part of our universe.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well That Was Unexpectedly Optimistic ... (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40296289)

Even though I was prepared for my question the state of sci-fi to be met with extreme disdain, nostalgia and complaining, it wasn't. The majority of comments on Slashdot don't even dignify the modern elements of movies that are sci-fi as being recognized as sci-fi and instead it seems to get marked more as fantasy or "soft" sci-fi. I was pleased to read otherwise from these folks -- perhaps that's a requirement to get anything done in the business?

Was also rather surprised that Philip K. Dick and Stanislaw Lem wasn't on their reading lists, however. I feel like Lem gets looked over simply for not being British or American despite having some of the earliest and most original/creative writing that special effects guys should be reading and treating as case studies in impossible things to lay on film. Although PKD wasn't super popular during his time, they sure are optioning the heck out of his works today to make them into film!

Doug Drexler nails Syfy (4, Insightful)

Picass0 (147474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40296327)

I love this quote. It says it all:

"As far as toyed with... I feel toyed with when plotlines are left unresolved, a promising show is cancelled before it's given a chance to find it's audience, and wrestling and ghosthunters displace science fiction on a science fiction network"

Counterexamples (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40296517)

"As far as toyed with... I feel toyed with when plotlines are left unresolved, a promising show is cancelled before it's given a chance to find it's audience, and wrestling and ghosthunters displace science fiction on a science fiction network"

I don't think that quote says it all. I mean take a look at some shows that overstayed their time in the name of money like Lost, Heroes or The X-Files. They were given a seemingly indefinite amount of time to get around to wrapping up their story arc and instead dawdled and expanded and answered questions with more questions in an almost seemingly serial model to acquire more money. I think we need to stop relying on his situation of: "a promising show is cancelled before it's given a chance to find it's [sic] audience" and instead shift more toward a BBC/British approach where a show is given one or two seasons to shit or get off the pot. You'll get a better mix of ideas in front of people and you won't find yourself stringing fans along and milking them for all they're worth while your material jumps the shark. It will force writers into more potent offerings and stop the last minute expansions to drag on after they're out of material.

He's right about Syfy, that channel is dead to me. I think when they changed their name to "Syfy" they were sending a message to all their fans that they were no longer a 'sci-fi' channel and the pressure to capitalize on their programming has made them their own thing -- directed by money from advertisers. This means wrestling and ghosts (what a large portion of people who watch a large amount of TV want to see).

Re:Counterexamples (1)

tunapez (1161697) | more than 2 years ago | (#40297099)

They were given a seemingly indefinite amount of time to get around to wrapping up their story arc and instead dawdled and expanded and answered questions with more questions in an almost seemingly serial model to acquire more money.

That's the feeling I got watching Prometheus last weekend. I was expecting "Stay Tuned" to pop up before the credits. Perhaps they did, the dramatic run from the rolling ship was the last absurdity I could take that particular day.

Re:Counterexamples (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40298385)

It's not just SyFy that went down the tubes; The Discovery Channel, TLC, and others have done the same thing. Discovery changed from showing educational shows to idiotic reality shows about mouth-breathing motorcycle builders constantly arguing with each other and building crappy motorcycles.

Why anyone with half a brain would bother subscribing to cable TV any more is beyond me. At least years ago, there was some good stuff on there; not any more.

Re:Counterexamples (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40315657)

The fall of a network which I lament the most is The History Network. I used to sit for hours watching documentary after documentary. Often with a running theme. Now instead of an insightful window into the past we get... American/Canadian Pickers and Ice Pilots...

Re:Counterexamples (1)

Pseudonym (62607) | more than 2 years ago | (#40304569)

That isn't going to happen, because a typical new BBC show is absurdly short by US standards. No US network would commission a series that's only six episodes long. That would be a mini-series.

You'd think that this would be win-win for US networks. You don't have to invest too much in a show that won't last beyond the first season, and as an added bonus, you have more audience feedback sooner. But no, that would be too sensible.

Re:Doug Drexler nails Syfy (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40297335)

It's not always Syfy that pulls this kind of thing: if you don't believe me, ask Joss Whedon.

Re:Doug Drexler nails Syfy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40301671)

True, but Drexler has a lot more experience dealing with SyFy (which does have wrestling, ghost hunters, and other only tangentially related reality shows like Quantum Kitchen and Dream Machines). That would most likely be why he chose to poke at them rather than Fox for what it's done to 2 Joss Whedon shows.

Re:Doug Drexler nails Syfy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40297923)

And a-fucking-men.

Ratings may be king, but fuck syfy in the eyehole. Scumbags could be helping the genre instead of murdering it.

Captcha "crucify"

Re:Doug Drexler nails Syfy (1)

hort_wort (1401963) | more than 2 years ago | (#40298849)

I love this quote. It says it all:

"As far as toyed with... I feel toyed with when plotlines are left unresolved, a promising show is cancelled before it's given a chance to find it's audience, and wrestling and ghosthunters displace science fiction on a science fiction network"

Yep, I love that they took a loaded question like that and turned it around into something cool. Something that says, "Hey, we're also frustrated by how things have been going, why do you think we're doing this?"

Tldw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40296659)

Does the top movie on the kickstarter page get anywhere? I stopped watching after 2 minutes because I just couldn't figure out what the project was about.

Nice interview (4, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40296671)

Nice interview. Answers felt straightforward and honest unlike SOME interviews I've read on /. Of course it helps that I liked the answers. And that VLM guy asked some great questions, he must be a genius.

I like this project. I like it a lot. I have the gut feeling they're on to something very big, as long as they avoid Fing it up along the way. Might I request that /. follow this project? We had raspberry pi articles roughly daily, that might be a bit excessive, but I don't want this project forgotten for 5 years until we have the obligatory "whatever happened to Space Command?" article. More Space Command articles please.

Re:Nice interview (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40296691)

And that VLM guy asked some great questions, he must be a genius.

hahahahHAHAHAHAHA HA HA HA ... HA ......... HA

NOT FUNNY.

Re:Nice interview (1)

SilentStaid (1474575) | more than 2 years ago | (#40297991)

More Space Command articles please.

And while we're at it, what about some more Bitcoin articles?

Re:Nice interview (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40298427)

I'm not so sure about this series being any good. One of the main guys behind it, "Niel", even mentions his most recent movie in the answers: "Alien Armageddon". Check it out on IMDB; it has a score of 1.7. Multiple reviewers even compare it to Battlefield: Earth, saying it makes BE look like a great movie. Based on his track record, it sounds like this project would have been better off with Uwe Boll at the helm, as horrifying a thought as that is.

Re:Nice interview (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40319973)

If anyone is interested, I've started up a fan site that I'm using to track all things related to Space Command. I would love any feedback or help with organizing all the data coming out of this project so far: http://spacecommandfans.com

3D Here To Stay... (4, Informative)

fallen1 (230220) | more than 2 years ago | (#40296807)

I continued reading their answers after I read the above comment, and may go back and read them all, but after reading that statement: "3D is here to stay, and can become a story telling technique, like in Hugo." I really wanted to vomit. 3D is currently nothing more than a way for studios to make an average 25+% more per person coming to the theater by "event charging" for a pair of plastic glasses. I have seen absolutely NO film, including Hugo, in which it was a game-changer or added a significant element to the story telling. If a writer can't get their story across with what is on a 2D screen visually + dialogue + acting ability + emotion then they aren't going to get it across by adding in 3D to the mix.

Tell me another story, please. Oh, better yet, tell me a GOOD story and don't upcharge me for the privilege of you tacking on 3D after the fact or getting to play with 3D cameras. I always opt for the 2D version when I can.

As an aside: Those of us who wear glasses (a growing proportion it seems) and do not have, cannot afford, or cannot wear contact lenses can't really enjoy 3D movies. I have tried watching 3D with both contacts + 3D glasses and glasses + 3D glasses -- they botch sucked.

Re:3D Here To Stay... (1)

aitikin (909209) | more than 2 years ago | (#40297383)

IMHO, 3D is a director's cop out. When you have a 2D movie, the director is forced to put some focus here, there, or elsewhere. Every 3D movie I've seen (admittedly few and far between), has allowed you the ability to focus on anything you want. Sure the primary thing is probably in the foreground, but I can choose to focus at the background image. To me, this is detrimental to the movie experience, unless the director is using this ability to their advantage.

An example of using it to their advantage would be having something going on in the background, foreground, and middle ground with all three parts being at least somewhat relevant to the story. I prefer 2D for movies in both personal appreciation and artistic sense.

Oh, and I'm a contact wearer, but I've never had any significant issue with 3D because of it. When I wear my regular glasses instead, yes, there's a problem, but otherwise, never ran into one.

Re:3D Here To Stay... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40305005)

IMHO, 3D is a director's cop out. When you have a 2D movie, the director is forced to put some focus here, there, or elsewhere. Every 3D movie I've seen (admittedly few and far between), has allowed you the ability to focus on anything you want. Sure the primary thing is probably in the foreground, but I can choose to focus at the background image. To me, this is detrimental to the movie experience, unless the director is using this ability to their advantage.

OTOH, Tron Legacy used movie focus techniques... and I think it came out poorly.

The cinema techniques must change; now the actors need to have more power to pull the focus to them, and the VFX people need to consider if their "explosion in the background" is adding to the story or adding to the noise.

I like Avatar:Blue People in 3d; even though 3d meant you could focus on many things, the dialogue/action/actors focused your attention to the appropriate place (the waterfall fades compared to the task of binding with a dragon).

Re:3D Here To Stay... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40300227)

Just because you are not a fan doesn't mean the product exists solely as a marketing gimmick, it just means you are not a part of their target audience. I will concede that a significant number of 3D movies have simply used the technology either as a poor excuse to rehash the same old story "but in 3D!" or as a cop out for making a good movie; however you shouldn't judge a technology by how it is being abused/misused (see tor), but rather how it can benefit the audience. And you cannot argue that 3D doesn't benefit the audience, because a substantial number of people are still paying premiums to see movies in 3D, so they are obviously enjoying/benefiting from the technology.

Whether or not 3D is here to stay is still debatable, in my opinion, as it has already fallen by the wayside once before. A big factor in its success is going to be whether more legitimate movies, like Hugo, use it as a plot-device to enhance the movie. If we continue to see bad movies use 3D to trick people into seeing it, eventually the market will get fed up with 3D altogether and it will once again fall into obscurity (until technology progresses sufficiently for its next resurgence).

That was dissappointing (0)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40296839)

Growing up, I remember that I took a certain pride that the mass market did not appreciate it. It was a private club. If you enjoyed it, you were weird. The fact that you enjoyed it said something about you. You were unusual, and did not follow the crowd. A story that Gene Roddenberry told was how his father apologized to the neighbors the night Star Trek premiered. That's cool.

This guy comes off like a hipster d-bag. It's nice when you can discover something cool that doesn't get a lot of mainstream attention, especially as a kid. And it's nice that that movies that may only appear to a niche market still get made.

But to say it's cool that somebody's father felt he needed to apologize for the work the kid had done? How is that cool?

If Gene Roddenberry's father had been proud of his son's work, then Star Trek wouldn't have been as good? What is this guy saying here?

Re:That was dissappointing (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40297113)

Yes. This rubbed me the wrong way too. Gene's dad should have been proud like the day Gene was born. He should have shanghaied everyone he could, dragged them into the house, and sat them down in front of the TV.

The personal significance of the situation would likely not have been missed by anyone that witnessed the birth of Trek at Old Man Roddenberry's house. No apologies required.

They likely weren't hipster d-bags either.

Re:That was dissappointing (1)

aitikin (909209) | more than 2 years ago | (#40297403)

Yes. This rubbed me the wrong way too. Gene's dad should have been proud like the day Gene was born. He should have shanghaied everyone he could, dragged them into the house, and sat them down in front of the TV.

I'm kind of assuming that that's what happened. He convince all the neighbors that they needed to watch his son's show and then, when they didn't like it or didn't understand it (more likely), he apologized for it. Maybe that's just me though.

Ed Wood? (1)

mcguyver (589810) | more than 2 years ago | (#40296873)

Independent sci-fi immediately creates a mental image of Ed Wood making saucers out of paper plates...

Re:Ed Wood? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40298445)

If you check out Niel's "Alien Armageddon" movie (2011) on IMDB, it doesn't sound too far from this mark.

Damn it, forgot to ask (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40296925)

I wanted to know why totally established producers and authors with a 30+ year career and thousands of contacts need to set up a kickstarter project to get funding.

Also, I'd like to know why season 5 of sliders sucked so much.

Third question: Will Space Command be neo-fashist like the late Star Trek universe?

Re:Damn it, forgot to ask (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40299029)

How on earth is the late Star Trek universe fascist? (Maybe by "late", you're talking about some Star Trek series I didn't pay much attention to, namely Enterprise and Voyager.) The Federation as depicted in ST:TNG, at least, appears to be rather socialist, though it's hard to put a modern-day label on a futuristic society that doesn't have the resource and energy limitations we currently have. There sure as heck isn't much mention of any corporations in ST, and that's generally a necessity with fascism, and there also certainly isn't any indication that the government is authoritarian in any way, more like big and bureaucratic somewhat like the modern-day EU.

Season 5 of Sliders probably sucked so much, I'm guessing, because it jumped the shark, like so many other TV series. Personally, I though the series was jumping the shark when they got so embroiled into the Kromagg drama. These shows would probably be better if they'd plan the entire run out beforehand, and stick to it, instead of basing the shows' length on ratings.

Re:Damn it, forgot to ask (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#40300127)

These shows would probably be better if they'd plan the entire run out beforehand, and stick to it, instead of basing the shows' length on ratings.

Hear, hear... but unfortunately as a show's creator you don't always have that control. You can't just walk into a network executive's office and make them understand that the story arc closings and final episodes of season 3 are what will keep the show great when that executive is seeing umpteen millions of advertising dollars in the network's future if only there were a season 4. And season 5. They'll say you can always finish off the stories in an upcoming season. Then you finish shooting season 5 and.. lo and behold, you get cancelled because nobody likes watching all the obvious filler material that made the entire show stray from the path set in seasons 1-2.. and the ending you envisioned, and any endings you had to come up with since prolonging the series, never even get made. If you're lucky, it's announced shortly before the season's end and you can try to make up some kind of ending that'll probably be ridiculous but at least it's an ending. ( Right, Voyager? Lost? Heroes?)

I'm actually glad the people behind this project seem to think there's still hope for the StarGate franchise.
But as I've mentioned in an earlier comment on this.. traditional sci-fi series episodes are expensive. SG:U was easily $1M/episode. They could do it for less.. if they'd cut a bunch of the 'big' name actors (they tend not to want to be paid less) and just re-used a bunch of the existing shots (currently it's mainly the exterior view shot that gets re-used sparingly) and made at least two 'clip show' episodes per season. But then it wouldn't really be SG:U anymore.
My only hope there is that an angel investor is willing to pony up a bunch of money for renewing the series, getting it a decent time slot, tapping into what's left of the fanbase, and performing proper promotion for the series. KickStarter et al wouldn't be a good fit for it.
On the up side.. season 2 ended with a soft cliffhanger.

How do they fund it? (1)

loufoque (1400831) | more than 2 years ago | (#40301363)

How are they going to fund it? It's got a lot of famous people and actors, and even with twice the funds they asked for they maybe not even have enough for two months. How are they going to film several movies in such a time?

Also everything, from the CGI to the concept art, looks like crap. What's the point of hiring a guy that made very cool CGI in Battlestar Galactica if he cannot reproduce the same level of quality? Why even say something along the lines of "with today's technologies it's impressive the effects you can do"? The only thing impressive about that CGI is how cheap it looks.

Sliders - Map of the Universe (1)

JTW (11913) | more than 2 years ago | (#40301879)

Stephen Baxter is a great writer and his TimeShips spanned what seemed like one dimension of the Universe, from now to the End of time.

In a similar way I thought Sliders was on the cusp of charting space and time but in the sideways sense of possibilties.

It would have been cool to explore the limits of habitable Earths and maybe even have gone extraterrestrial. It always seemed artificial for them to arrive only on Earths with a population, and never explain that. There were rules like they would not time travel on the show and that felt artificial too.. in a lot of ways.. all the limiting rules storylines seemed its undoing. It became believe it or not more comedy and then theatrical tragedy. It was an exterme, focusing too much on individuals and then a single individual, until that individual left.. and then they jumped the shark for sure.. it could have easily opened up and passed the batton or went oribus and explained how a single individual got so lucky.. and felt very satisfying.. even leaving open the franchise to others.. remember the Quinn that tossed him a fully functional timer? One that actually worked?

As it is Sliders will have to be re-imagined one day.

I just hope like Stephen Baxter they think larger and less limiting.. they hinted at coordinates and ways of navigating the ethereal plains of existence.. and that others out there might be doing the same.. "Slide like an Egyptian" hinted at that tongue in cheek.

What I had against the Kromags was the overt beating over the head with the idea that Neaderthals or some evolved Nazi's could go maurading and conquering alternate worlds.. as if mere resources or emotion were good enough to justify why they were pursuing it. I rather liked the individual idea of exploration and curiousity (like the original HG Wells time traveler) was more likely and interesting.. coming across say one or two civilizations who thought pandimensional travel was interesting.. was okay.. but making it a focal point of storyline was hard to relate to.. (it would be like making star travel common place).

Rather it would have been nicer if they got themselves into serious trouble and the mysterious Quinn with the working timer reappeared with some answers but not all.. and they discovered they were being sponsored by a different civilization.. or one totally outside our experience..like the ones from Contact.. for their own reasons that probably would have nothing to do with us.. somethings we simply will never know.

In a lot of ways it was the American Doctor Who saga rather junior style.. as if it were Doctor Who "the early years".. keeping it grounded in hard science would have been a challenge bit fun.. and if they lifted the ban on time travel, even if only the rate of time on different worlds allowed limited travel they could have explored things that left the planet, or warming of the earth, or space and star travel.

Handing off the technology to different travelers would have been rather like the Doctor changing faces every few seasons, with only the mysterious sponsors or Quinn with the Cheshire cat grin left to maintain continuity.

Thanks guys! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40309121)

It's good to hear that you are all interested in making something new and fun and smart!

Don't let the low-post count on this thread fool you. You're on to something big, and everybody on this board is going to tune in. You can be 100% certain of that. (Slashdotters are a cynical bunch who complain more than they encourage, but they're all sci-fi geeks to the last.)

Stick to your guns, do the best you can, as it clearly sounds like you intend, and you'll be fine.

I'll be watching, that's for sure!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?