Low budget Sci-Fi, what do you want?

P

peter orland

Well-known member
I'm trying to find out what it is that makes a low-budget Sci-Fi (as in not action/special effects driven) interesting, compelling to people who like this genre.

Is it more important to be mentally stimulated than emotionally stimulated? Both?
How important is the visual style? More important in this genre than say a drama?
Sound design, more important in this genre?
Music, traditional style score? Abstract? None?
Locations production design, real, or created, make a difference?
Does including another sub-genre enhance this type of film? Sci-Fi/Thriller? Sci-Fi/Horror? Sci-Fi/Drama? Sci-Fi/Mystery?
What would be your top three things that a low-budget Sci-Fi would have to have, to have any chance of capturing you as an audience?
What would be the top three things that you would absolutely hope it didn't have, or do, so as not to ruin it for you?
Any favorites? Why did you like that one?

I haven't listed any films as examples as I would rather not argue about the pros and cons of this film verses that, I am more interested in your opinions in general regarding this genre.

Thanks.
 
Visual style, sound, music, and locations are always important. Visual style in terms of art direction is especially important...here's why. Good science fiction is at its core an exploration of consequences and ramifications; speculation, if you will, on the future. This can be shown through the technology advances and design of architecture, automobiles and clothing in a film, which is part of why I enjoyed Minority Report (for example): the cars that went up buildings, the spinning force-guns, the way the character's retinal signature is so important because everything reads it, even the advertising. Spidey pulled off CPU (very well I thought) visually as science fiction by implying that society was a state of decay through his choice of exterior locations. Of course the fact that rogue androids ("metals") were hunted down with extreme prejudice for bounty also contributed somewhat to that impression.

And that leads me to my next point: for a science fiction film, the more the actual story has to do with speculation on the consequences of mankind's actions, particularly in regard to advancing or advanced technology, the better. CPU dealt with a popular theme in hard science fiction, AI, though it had a lot less time to do it with than say Blade Runner. What Minority Report said to me was that there's no such thing as infallible technology. I'd point you to "The Final Cut" with Robin Williams as good science fiction, not many people have seen it.
 
Just watch "Videodrome" and a more recent film "A Scanner Darkly". That's all I can think of off the top of my head, in terms of sci fi that isn't effects/action driven. "Videodrome" is my absolute favorite sci fi film.
 
Not sure what you mean by "Wow... really?" Well, I do, but I'm not going to say it. And yes, my avatar is from the Luis Bunel/Salvador Dali silent film "Un Chien Andalou". Oh yeah, I also forgot to mention "Primer" as another good non effects/action driven sci fi film. I just realized it sounds like I'm recommending films, rather than being on topic, but basically I just mean watch those films if you want the answers to your questions.
 
Last edited:
Billy Pilgrim said:
I just realized it sounds like I'm recommending films, rather than being on topic, but basically I just mean watch those films if you want the answers to your questions.
Click to expand...

Correct...and I have seen all the films you have mentioned, and like most people that like this genre, a whole stack more. :beer:

But like I said in my post..."I haven't listed any films as examples as I would rather not argue about the pros and cons of this film verses that, I am more interested in your opinions in general regarding this genre."

But thanks all the same. And to the other posters.

Any other film buffs/officianados that would like to share their views on what elements go toward making a low budget Sci-Fi work for them?
 
Well,in that case, I think something that's different is what does it for me. All the ones I listed take place on earth, in real settings, and have interesting characters and concepts. In the case of Primer, it's an old sci fi idea (time travel) put in a lon-linear structure (perfect for time travel films), and made it realistic yet ambiguous. Videodrome is just different subject matter all together. I don't really go for the rockets and space stuff. I like Star Wars, but I don't consider them sci fi, but rather adventure.
 
There are 2 kinds of Sci'Fi's

There are the ones that appeal to a small niche market (The braintypes; a more cerebral Science Fiction):

Star Trek, The New Star Wars, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, Alien, The Matrix, Serenity

and then the other's the action oriented ones:

The old Star Wars, Aliens, The Thing, The Terminator, E.T., War of the Worlds, Invasion of the Body Snatcher's ...

-

You are asking a loaded and inpossible to answer question. The simple, honest answer is 'Give us a great story!'

Period.

There is too much in the genre itself (and the many sub-genres) as well as two different 'Braintypes' in Science Fiction

http://www.filmsite.org/sci-fifilms.html

Also, the highest rated as put by the people of imdb

http://www.imdb.com/chart/scifi

STORY STORY STORY STORY STORY STORY STORY STORY STORY STORY STORY !
 
Primer and Videodrome are two excellent examples.

In the case of Videodrome Cronenberg took something simple like televison and VHS (which were new techs at the time) and made people look at them in a horrifyingly new way. I freaking love that movie as well.

Primer is great because of all the research and knowledge that went into the script. It makes you believe its possible. The only thing about it that bugs me on repeated viewings is the movie is honestly almost all exposition. There's not that much action.
 
John_Hudson said:
There are the ones that appeal to a small niche market (The braintypes; a more cerebral Science Fiction):

Star Trek, The New Star Wars, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, Alien, The Matrix, Serenity
Click to expand...
You threw that in there just to annoy me, didn't you?
 
I hate Star Wars.

Primer is a great example (as said like five times) of Sci-Fi but it will not, I repeat, WILL NOT APPEAL TO THE MASSES. If you're looking for something that'll stand out... visual style and story depth are your best weapons, IMO.

Donnie Darko's a cult hit, and it's considered Sci-Fi to a degree. It took Kelly forever to garner the attention he deserved from it because it was loopy and passive.

www.theore.net = Sci-Fi. HVX200. I pre-ordered mines a while back.

So, you really have to get into what you're writing and show some style to have it stick out like I'm assuming you're wanting it too.
 
peter orland said:
I'm trying to find out what it is that makes a low-budget Sci-Fi (as in not action/special effects driven) interesting, compelling to people who like this genre.

Is it more important to be mentally stimulated than emotionally stimulated? Both?
How important is the visual style? More important in this genre than say a drama?
Sound design, more important in this genre?
Music, traditional style score? Abstract? None?
Locations production design, real, or created, make a difference?
Does including another sub-genre enhance this type of film? Sci-Fi/Thriller? Sci-Fi/Horror? Sci-Fi/Drama? Sci-Fi/Mystery?
What would be your top three things that a low-budget Sci-Fi would have to have, to have any chance of capturing you as an audience?
What would be the top three things that you would absolutely hope it didn't have, or do, so as not to ruin it for you?
Any favorites? Why did you like that one?

I haven't listed any films as examples as I would rather not argue about the pros and cons of this film verses that, I am more interested in your opinions in general regarding this genre.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

And getting back to the original post, here's more for ya.

Emotional and Mental Stimulation: It is important for me, when viewing a Sci-Fi movie, that I feel like this world I live in his eight times boring in comparison to. Call me a nerd, but I wanted to be in The Matrix when I saw it. I walked home wishing it'd come true. Lord of the Rings is fantasy/Sci-Fi... I also wish a war would break out with dragons and the like. That's my connection. The "Why can't my life be like that?" is my mental and emotional.

Sound Design: No matter what movie genre, Sound Design is Sound Design; it's a part of what creates the cinematic experience. Don't shy on it...

Music: Sci-Fi doesn't have to stick to abstract techno jam or anything like that. I'd say it's a bolder move to meld the genre with softer tones if you can do it. This goes under style, and is just as important as visual style.

Locations, Production Design: Real or Created, you'd better put some blood into it. All too many times do student films and mini-projects fail to deliver as much impact as possible (even on budget) because a scene was obviously shot in a bedroom corner when it was supposed to be a mad scientists lab. Locations are VERY IMPORTANT. You want to sell your story to the audience, right?

Sub Genre: Sci-Fi/Action for me. Then Sci-Fi/Horror. This is all opinion, though. I'm working on a Sci-Fi story now and it's got more horror undertones than anything else, but I wouldn't call it horror; it's the visual style that's all.

Top Three things: Great Characters, Great Concept, Great Execution/Presentation. I don't care if it's a mediocre plot. Sci-Fi can be great as a popcorn movie, y'know? And if someone's watching your entire movie while eating popcorn, you've done a good job.

Tope Three No-nos: Gratuitous Sex Scene, Underdone amateur fight sequence, Really BAD ACTING.

Have fun.
 
Rules to live by.

I would also recommend staying away from cheesy CGI.

I've seen some indie sci-fi CGI that looked terrible.

If you don't have the money to do it right then don't do it. Although there are some amateurs out there who are CGI geniuses. If you can find one of them then bonus.
 
The Machinist said:
Rules to live by.

I would also recommend staying away from cheesy CGI.

I've seen some indie sci-fi CGI that looked terrible.

If you don't have the money to do it right then don't do it. Although there are some amateurs out there who are CGI geniuses. If you can find one of them then bonus.
Click to expand...

GAHD. PLEASE listen to Machinist. If you can substitute horrible CGI for great practical effects, please do. If you can't do that, re-write around it. But that's another no-no...

Horrible CGI is like THE first thing to take me out of a movie. I dunno HOW many times I've turned to the Sci-Fi channel after seeing an "interesting" summary in the TV guide... and switched RIGHT back to Cartoon Network after seeing a freaking horrible rendition of some ALIEN or CREATURE. And Lou Diamond Phillips... sorry no thanks Lou. Young Guns was your last triumph.

Get a tight script going and get some CG artists interested in your project to the point where they'll do it for dirt cheap just to show their stuff.
 
Let's make this point one more time:

!!!!!!Avoid!!!!! !!!!Cheesy!!!! !!!!CGI!!!!

Just turn the computer off and walk away! Do as much in camera as you can. You'll thank us later.

See 95% of Sci-fi channel shows and 95% of music videos for examples of what NOT to do.
 
I for one enjoy a fresh, thought evoking story, combined with good imagry. The typical slasher or zombie flick just don't offer anything really new, just gorier. Silence of the Lambs is a good example, and House of 1,000 Corpses, even though it was hauntingly like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, just the gags in the menu were worth the rental price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top