It’s true that a remake doesn’t alter the original work, but it might alter the perception of the original. For that reason I’m also dreading the proposed live-action (and needlessly Americanized) reboots of both Akira, and Ghost in the Shell.

The corporate monster aspect appeals to some, others would see it as what can be accomplished with profit motivated goals. And although not new, it was still cool to see the portrayal of terraforming in “Aliens”.

For me, anything that has to do with space travel or alien civilizations or non-existent tech qualifies as Sci-fi. Speaking of tech, that exoskeletal “loader” Ripley drove in Aliens was awesome. I want one.

I just finished Dan Browns “Inferno”. A real action packed page turner but not touted as science fiction. But since it deals with the dangers of genetic engineering, it would fall within your definition.

The business end is afraid to take chances, so they resurrect tried and true formulas that worked well in the past because they are afraid to take a chance on doing something new and creative. Good films are being made, but its only because individual creative producers, and in some case, actors and directors themselves, are betting the farm to get them done. It is inevitable that a certain percentage of them will fail, just because a product is good doesn’t mean it will necessarily catch on with the public. Being the famous producer of a film that becomes a cult favorite 20 years later is great in cinematography class and wins you artsy-fartsy awards, but it doesn’t pay your bills or steer big budget projects your way. In order to come up with the financing, the money guys insist on a voice in the final product. And they speak with forked tongues.

The money guys suck all the oxygen out of the room, taking all the money and talent and blowing it on material that worked in the past, but that the audience recognizes as derivative crap. It’s not just SF, look at how many bad movies today are just big expensive remakes of good films done just a few years ago, or are simply successes transferred from other media (graphic novels, computer games, TV, even hit songs).

Thank heavens for a few people out there like HBO who are willing to take a chance and put out a good product, even if it means hocking their wives’ jewelry to do it.

What ER said.

It appears to me that he is wrong intellectually as you have elucidated. I believe he is also wrong from a purely prosaic standpoint. In addition to it’s value as art and cultural commentary, it will continue to be a major part of the entertainment milieu, including the bombs and the brilliant.

Until these rehash-hacks retire — or, better yet, get fired — we’ll be stuck with the same lame crap they’ve been doling out for years. Occasionally, they hit the mark, but certainly not usually.

I believe the new “Robocop” may be too soon, unless they plan to have it thickly laced with good nano- and bio-tech science.

Thinking about it, “Forbidden Planet” might be a good remake.

Cheers.

I feel SF is that branch of literature that concerns itself with how technological and other changes will affect us, both psychologically and socially. In other words, SF examines our society by extrapolating contemporary trends into the future, or by observing how our society will change when faced with a technological or cultural shock. By this definition, Verne’s “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea” is not really SF since it is primarily a psychological study of Captain Nemo wrapped around a pure adventure story. Verne made no effort to try to imagine how submarine warfare would affect international conflict forever, on a strategic scale, and his guesses on how submersibles would be employed tactically were way off the mark.

OTOH, Wells’ “War of the Worlds” is SF by this definition because it examines certain Victorian attitudes towards Imperialism and European cultural supremacy by turning the tables and making Britain the “natives” under attack and occupation by a superior foreign technological civilization. This definition is not a judgement of literary merit, both Wells and Vern wrote terrific books. The first two “Alien” films were ground-breaking entertainments, true works of art in my opinion, but none were really SF by my and Amis’ definition.

A film like “Avatar”, though, is definitely SF, since it critically examines contemporary themes in a futuristic setting: cultural and technological imperialism, and commercial impact on an aboriginal culture. However, dramatically, it was a lousy movie, a bit too preachy and self-righteous, even for those who might accept its point of view. In contrast, Herbert’s “Dune” is an amazing work of prophecy and analysis, dealing with themes like messianic religion, industrial and political exploitation of tribal societies unfortunate enough to be blessed with valuable resources, and how they can be dragged into superpower confrontations. “Dune” is history, not through a microscope, but through the telescope.

I also believe we still need SF and for the same reasons you do, to look into the future. The novel and the film can be used to study the human condition, both individually and collectively, by speculating how we react to change, particularly (in the case of SF) technological change. Learning what happens to people under stress is why we have literature in the first place.

It isn’t usually possible to predict new technology, new science, or how we will respond to it. But SF reminds us that there will always be unanticipated and unforeseen consequences. We tend to forget that.