Chris Nolan Saving Movie Theaters

[ahalpert]

Yeah Gravity's not really scifi. It's realist. Anything unreal is not technological. It's a survival film set in space. I compare it to Interstellar because they're both space adventures and shared an eerily similar theme surrounding Newton's 3rd law of motion. And I saw them around the same time.

It looks like people generally label it scifi though because it's a space adventure

Definition: "fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets."

 

[Guest]

Yeah Gravity's not really scifi. It's realist. Anything unreal is not technological. It's a survival film set in space. I compare it to Interstellar because they're both space adventures and shared an eerily similar theme surrounding Newton's 3rd law of motion. And I saw them around the same time.

It looks like people generally label it scifi though because it's a space adventure

Definition: "fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets."

But that is what I find odd, you are not in agreement with the idea that all Sci-fi is a little disappointing, and yet you go on saying how you prefer all these non-sci-fi films over the sci-fi ones. I think "2001" is the only sci-fi you've mentioned liking, but you also like all things Kubrick. So, after this conversation, I feel like you are not a sci-fi fan. Which is fine. I'm just getting a little turned around from where this conversation started. And not sure what to add any more, or I guess we have moved on and we just go on to the next thing.

 

[ahalpert]

Lol have you not heard me talk about star trek? Or star wars? I've never had to prove my geek identity before lol.

I'm not a religious sci-fi fan like I have to see it all or like it all. But I love the idea of having a ray gun or traveling to other planets or going back in time. Much more than the idea of dragons and magic. Those require far more suspension of disbelief from me and often seem to revolve around domination fantasies (who will rule) rather than liberation fantasies, which I like.

I loved Blade Runner. But the noir elements worked for me, too. I loved the 5th Element, similarly. And it had just the right amount of camp. First 2 terminator movies were great. First couple aliens were great, but a bit much horror for me. But these were great movies in their own right. I like good scifi movies not just scifi movies.

What about the Matrix? A work of genius (not the sequels). I didn't like LOTR but I thought most of the storytelling was much weaker than Princess Bride, for example. Less impactful. (Now I'm proving I'm partial to scifi over fantasy)

Avatar sucked. Even though I saw it stoned in IMAX 3d opening night

I liked the Battlestar Galactica miniseries but didn't get into the show. Too dark and too TV-ish. I liked the show Firefly though and the nice touches like no sound in space and lots of Mandarin incorporated into English.

In my childhood I watched the star wars trilogy many, many times. Later, the prequels hugely disappointed me by being much less compelling.

I watched all the star trek films and a smattering of episodes from the 4 existing trek series that my grandfather recorded for us on vhs since we didn't get TV as my parents' choice.

I never got into the trek series from the early 2000s ("enterprise"). It was about the trek universe when the tech was still being developed. Might have been good, but I was bored.

There were 2 recent trek shows (picard and discovery) that were pretty good so I watched those. And now I've gone back to watch the next generation in order starting we with season 3. I'm a few episodes into season 5. And I rewatched a handful of the films.

The problems that I have are not usually with the technology. But trek tries to stay relatively consistent within its rules, which is fun. The problems are if it's too corny, if there's an unbelievable plotline because people do things that are unlikely for their character, or if there are boring or obvious sequences, or if there's a plot device that doesn't make sense and wouldn't make sense in any other type of military movie. You know, the regular stuff.

But this vision of the future captivates me. Mankind united in peaceful exploration of the galaxy, able to travel faster than light. How exciting. I dont believe in aliens much...or at least not the type and variety in the show...but hey. Cool.

As a kid I also read a number of star trek and star wars books. I loved Dune (I dont remember the adaptations that well). I love the premise of brave new world, I'd love to make that into a movie. I love the Cyberiad.

I'm writing a scifi epic about a guy who travels progressively further into the future via cryonic freezing

 

[Guest]

Lol have you not heard me talk about star trek? Or star wars?

Those are cultural phenomena in the USA. Not explicitly for sci-fi fans, and Star Wars is more space opera than traditional sci-fi. So, yes, I have heard you talk about them, but I don't think that means you are a sci-fi fan. Maybe if you talked more about all of the Star Treks, but I've only heard seen you write about the original series, and the references to the writing and visual styles more than the ideas behind it all.

 

[ahalpert]

You can't separate writing or visuals from ideas and philosophy. They're bound up together. Like one of the things I like about the lighting and production design from next generation is how clean and modern and evenly lit the whole ship is. A vision of an orderly future.

But blade runner or 5th element show dystopian outcomes that seem just as likely. Pondering what will happen in the future is lots of fun.

And either way, I'd give anything to own a ray gun or get to travel faster than light just once. Or to go back in time

And btw star trek is not as popular as you think. Star wars is way more mainstream. The recent trek movies have tried to bring in a mainstream audience at the expense of trampling on the original canon and mining it for its best characters and plots

But yeah as a kid I wanted to be a Vulcan. Or an android. They serve a similar function in their respective shows (spock and data)

 

[ahalpert]

Deep space 9 and Voyager are less talked about. Ds9 was great for developing character and storylines more than the other shows. Voyager had a lot of FX and action scenes that I really enjoyed as a kid. As an adult, I realize that it was a dramatically weaker show.

 

[Guest]

I'm not a religious sci-fi fan like I have to see it all or like it all. But I love the idea of having a ray gun or traveling to other planets or going back in time. Much more than the idea of dragons and magic. Those require far more suspension of disbelief from me and often seem to revolve around domination fantasies (who will rule) rather than liberation fantasies, which I like.

That's an interesting comparison. I had not ever seen it quite so simply divided in power dichotomy like that. I don't immediately agree, but I like hearing theories like that.

I liked the Battlestar Galactica miniseries but didn't get into the show. Too dark and too TV-ish. I liked the show Firefly though and the nice touches like no sound in space and lots of Mandarin incorporated into English.

. Yeah, I liked hearing Mandarin sprinkled in there. Was a nice touch.

I watched all the star trek films and a smattering of episodes from the 4 existing trek series that my grandfather recorded for us on vhs since we didn't get TV as my parents' choice.

That is cool that your grandfather did that. Good times.

And now I've gone back to watch the next generation in order starting we with season 3. I'm a few episodes into season 5. And I rewatched a handful of the films.

The problems that I have are not usually with the technology. But trek tries to stay relatively consistent within its rules, which is fun. The problems are if it's too corny, if there's an unbelievable plotline because people do things that are unlikely for their character, or if there are boring or obvious sequences, or if there's a plot device that doesn't make sense and wouldn't make sense in any other type of military movie. You know, the regular stuff.

Yeah, for its span, Star Trek is one of the tighter knit sci-fi's that manages to hold together well enough for many fans.

But this vision of the future captivates me. Mankind united in peaceful exploration of the galaxy, able to travel faster than light. How exciting. I dont believe in aliens much...or at least not the type and variety in the show...but hey. Cool.

As a kid I also read a number of star trek and star wars books. I loved Dune (I dont remember the adaptations that well). I love the premise of brave new world, I'd love to make that into a movie. I love the Cyberiad.

Dune has its own life in the books. I doubt the films will ever be able to capture its essence. But I enjoyed the David Lynch version still, and will likely enjoy the Dennis Villenueve one, as well.

Never heard of Cyberiad. Will read those, thanks for the recommendation.

I'm writing a scifi epic about a guy who travels progressively further into the future via cryonic freezing

If you hadn't already proven you enjoy sci-fi, this right here is about as dedicated as one can get.

 

[Run&Gun]

Wasn't there an invisible car in one of the bad ones?

I guess I would say these are cross-genre films. Prestige was mystery/period with sci-fi elements. Batman was superhero with sci-fi elements. James bond is thriller/spy with sci-fi elements. But you're right that sci-fi is not the dominant genre for those films

Which brings up a possibly interesting debate... Is there a definitive line of demarcation for a story or movie to be "just sci-fi", meaning that's the only category you assign it to/consider it or are they all gonna be "cross-genre"? Because you could argue West World from 100 different angles. Ooo, I forgot about Cowboys and Aliens, too...

 

[ahalpert]

You have to read the Cyberiad - it's sort of a comical series of short stories by a Polish author about robots and stuff.

Oh - Altered Carbon was great. But apparently based on successful books. One needs great writing. And there's something on amazon now I think - the expanse - based on famous books? Haven't read or seen that.

William Shatner had some books and movies called Tek War. The movie was held back a bit by corny effects and production design.

Children of Men was genius. Handmaid's Tale is essentially sci-fi but dark, so dark.

I dont like scifi that sticks super closely to scifi tropes and has really crappy prose and character development. There were a lot of books like that

I loved the beginning of brave new world...such a genius depiction of american life but sort of in a funhouse mirror. But the plot got boring and I put it down. The good stuff was in the beginning

 

[Guest]

You can't separate writing or visuals from ideas and philosophy. They're bound up together. Like one of the things I like about the lighting and production design from next generation is how clean and modern and evenly lit the whole ship is. A vision of an orderly future.

But blade runner or 5th element show dystopian outcomes that seem just as likely. Pondering what will happen in the future is lots of fun.

Yes, great to see the style reflecting the undertones and ideals in the overall theme of the stories.

But style is not inherent to a genre, that is inherent to the meaning within the story. Like you say, Blade Runner is full of shadows, and Next Gen is bright and evenly lit (for the most part), yet they are both sci-fi. But we've move beyond this in our other running posts.

And btw star trek is not as popular as you think. Star wars is way more mainstream.

not sure I ever compared the two.

 

[ahalpert]

Which brings up a possibly interesting debate... Is there a definitive line of demarcation for a story or movie to be "just sci-fi", meaning that's the only category you assign it to/consider it or are they all gonna be "cross-genre"? Because you could argue West World from 100 different angles. Ooo, I forgot about Cowboys and Aliens, too...

Right well even Star Trek is often called a space western. That's why I feel like if you have fantastic technology, I should get to claim that you're watching sci-fi!

Alien felt very horror to me. The scariness and the pacing, the battle with the alien that could jump out at any time.....deeeeeeefinitely not like star trek. Except the movie First Contact which was not as scary but had similarities. But supposedly Alien had a big influence on the development of the next generation.

Gattaca is sort of a thriller. I, Robot and Minority Report are sort of cop stories.

The studio added a damn film noir voice over on the theatrical release of blade runner.

War of the Worlds was...a war movie. A bit much for me. I really felt like I was gonna die.

Independence Day - a military movie. That one works for me bigtime.

Ooh X files...some great mystery stuff. Great character dynamic between mulder and Scully (but for some reason my wife wasn't keen on naming our son Fox). X files had a couple good movies too.

 

[ahalpert]

Yes, great to see the style reflecting the undertones and ideals in the overall theme of the stories.

But style is not inherent to a genre, that is inherent to the meaning within the story. Like you say, Blade Runner is full of shadows, and Next Gen is bright and evenly lit (for the most part), yet they are both sci-fi. But we've move beyond this in our other running posts.



not sure I ever compared the two.

And Alien is super dark. A shadowy corporation calls the shots and cares nothing for the lives of its employees. (Verging on Jurassic Park theme there - the brilliant opening of the original with the t-rex pulling the guy inside the cage on the rain and the guy yelling "shoot her! Shoot her!" But they won't because her life is worth more than his. JP definitely scifi/horror/action/family adventure

You said trek and star wars were both cultural phenomena, not strictly for scifi fans.

 

[ahalpert]

Thinking about alien...which is definitely scifi...and gravity, which is technically not...

Alien feels like horror to me because the focus is on the monster and the scariness

Gravity feels like scifi because the focus is on being in space as a novelty for the viewer. (And yes, also the survival part)

 

[Guest]

You have to read the Cyberiad - it's sort of a comical series of short stories by a Polish author about robots and stuff.

Oh - Altered Carbon was great. But apparently based on successful books. One needs great writing. And there's something on amazon now I think - the expanse - based on famous books? Haven't read or seen that.

William Shatner had some books and movies called Tek War. The movie was held back a bit by corny effects and production design.

Children of Men was genius. Handmaid's Tale is essentially sci-fi but dark, so dark.

I dont like scifi that sticks super closely to scifi tropes and has really crappy prose and character development. There were a lot of books like that

I loved the beginning of brave new world...such a genius depiction of american life but sort of in a funhouse mirror. But the plot got boring and I put it down. The good stuff was in the beginning

Ok, I believe you like and look for sci-fi films beyond the average person.

Then we can also mention that Nolan is not a Sci-Fi director, if you ask me. He is pretty consistent with enjoying messing with time. Even 'Dunkirk' does it by telling three parallel stories that progress at different rates but all over the same physical time in the film. There are many film makers that enjoy the way that films can manipulate time, and I am assuming Nolan has made that a part of his life long pursuit. Or perhaps he has been "type-cast" by investors. Interstellar and Inception felt like they were sci-fi by circumstance. It was the Mind bending aspects and the warring of time that seemed more what drew Nolan to the stories. So, I suppose it is no wonder the sci-fi aspects are what kind of falter a little bit in his films. He is very detailed, but perhaps his focus is just to the left of science fiction, or whatever.

 

[Guest]

Thinking about alien...which is definitely scifi...and gravity, which is technically not...

Alien feels like horror to me because the focus is on the monster and the scariness

Gravity feels like scifi because the focus is on being in space as a novelty for the viewer. (And yes, also the survival part)

Agreed, when you reminded me of the ending of 'Gravity' it definitely circled round back to sci-fi in a real way.

And Alien is a bit of a genre blend. Scott even mentions so.

 

[Guest]

You said trek and star wars were both cultural phenomena, not strictly for scifi fans.

initially Star Trek the originals were perhaps more for sci-fi fans, but not anymore. They are a part of the main stream tapestry in the US now. And a lot of people enjoy the idea of it for the retro stylings and so on. Most people haven't even seen a show but know and feel it in the culture. Who can't do a Kirk impersonation, or who doesn't get the Vulcan sign? And the show spawned so many hundreds of hours of more shows. To say it is a cultural phenoma in the USA is not an overstatement, unless you are stuck back in the year they cancelled the original in the third season. ... but that is time travel. We can't do that. Major plot hole.

 

[Guest]

Is there a definitive line of demarcation for a story or movie to be "just sci-fi", meaning that's the only category you assign it to/consider it or are they all gonna be "cross-genre"?

That is pretty true of most films. they're all a bit of cross-genre. Put enough wise cracks in a modern romance, and it is a comedy-romance.... it happens enough romance films that they should have a name for it.

 

[ahalpert]

Ok, I believe you like and look for sci-fi films beyond the average person.

Then we can also mention that Nolan is not a Sci-Fi director, if you ask me. He is pretty consistent with enjoying messing with time. Even 'Dunkirk' does it by telling three parallel stories that progress at different rates but all over the same physical time in the film. There are many film makers that enjoy the way that films can manipulate time, and I am assuming Nolan has made that a part of his life long pursuit. Or perhaps he has been "type-cast" by investors. Interstellar and Inception felt like they were sci-fi by circumstance. It was the Mind bending aspects and the warring of time that seemed more what drew Nolan to the stories. So, I suppose it is no wonder the sci-fi aspects are what kind of falter a little bit in his films. He is very detailed, but perhaps his focus is just to the left of science fiction, or whatever.

Kubrick made classic scifi and was not a scifi director. (Actually clockwork orange can probably be considered scifi as well so 2 classics)

Nolan loves nonlinear storytelling. That's what he said he loved about pulp fiction.

And now his new one is scifi too. So....he's told a lot of scifi stories at this point.

I'm excited for his new movie, just...my expectations are lowered.

I think prestige and memento succeeded in part by developing so much of the petty human stuff. The anger of guy pierce at his wife's killer and the overwhelming guilt that he killed her. The rivalry between the magicians and the troubled marriage of the 2 Christian bales with the wife. Believing the interpersonal dynamics/emotions really carried me along those plots

 

[ahalpert]

Oh and Looper was fun. That's a nice run of the mill scifi for me. Just good enough to pass my bar. I dont think the central idea of time travel was realistic at all but I was willing to go along with it (plus if they can travel through time, what's with the petty mob stuff)

 

[ahalpert]

initially Star Trek the originals were perhaps more for sci-fi fans, but not anymore. They are a part of the main stream tapestry in the US now. And a lot of people enjoy the idea of it for the retro stylings and so on. Most people haven't even seen a show but know and feel it in the culture. Who can't do a Kirk impersonation, or who doesn't get the Vulcan sign? And the show spawned so many hundreds of hours of more shows. To say it is a cultural phenoma in the USA is not an overstatement, unless you are stuck back in the year they cancelled the original in the third season. ... but that is time travel. We can't do that. Major plot hole.

I told my wife recently that I finally found something worthy of tattooing on myself. IDIC (which is the Vulcan acronym of Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, and represented by a triangle with a circle at its apex). I told my wife I would get that tattoo on my chest and she was like, "you're getting a tattoo?" And I said no, but if I did it would be that.

Trek is a beautiful philosophy of diversity, pluralism, peaceful coexistence, self-determination, egalitarian meritocracy. It's the future I wished I could live to see. And just the right amount of conflict to keep things interesting

The new shows that came out in the last couple of years are actually way more cynical and some people are less on board. I have mixed feelings but realism is nice