Why Do Some Sci-Fi Reboots Fail to Impress?

  • Thread starter new6ton
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Sci-fi
In summary: Yes, Putin does look like a tall, thin American. I noticed Russians look like Americans. If you mix them. Can you tell them apart? Yes, Putin does look like a tall, thin American.
  • #36
Why do you guys like science fiction?

I like science fiction to give me ideas of realities better.

On earth. Bangladesh doesn't represent what a normal country should be. So in this galaxy, our Earth now doesn't represent what is supposed to be the normal, correct?

I was watching a rerun of Aquaman 2018 last night (halfway). In the movie, the interviewee announced on TV said the Atlanteans were responsible for the destruction. The anchorman said nonsense, the interviewee said we have already an Atlantean among us, Aquaman.

I get pissed off whenever I watch a science ficiton in which I didn't learn a new insight. Then I consider it waste of time. How about you?

In Aquaman. The insight is that there could be some cybernetic slaves of Atlantis trying to abduct and experiment on humans as some claimed.

Also remember our science now is just science based on emergence. I guess there will be new laws of physics when we get into the fundamental physics (such as Neo-Ether dynamics?) right?

Or do I need to go see a psychiatrist? :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
new6ton said:
Why do you guys like science fiction?

I like science fiction to give me ideas of realities better.

On earth. Bangladesh doesn't represent what a normal country should be. So in this galaxy, our Earth now doesn't represent what is supposed to be the normal, correct?

I was watching a rerun of Aquaman 2018 last night (halfway). In the movie, the interviewee announced on TV said the Atlanteans were responsible for the destruction. The anchorman said nonsense, the interviewee said we have already an Atlantean among us, Aquaman.

I get pissed off whenever I watch a science ficiton in which I didn't learn a new insight. Then I consider it waste of time. How about you?

In Aquaman. The insight is that there could be some cybernetic slaves of Atlantis trying to abduct and experiment on humans as some claimed.

Also remember our science now is just science based on emergence. I guess there will be new laws of physics when we get into the fundamental physics (such as Neo-Ether dynamics?) right?

Or do I need to go see a psychiatrist? :)
I can see the consideration of alternative realities as being what is attractive in SF. But times have changed.
Nowadays, it seems the reality of many incredible things going on that takes away a lot of the attraction from SF. Tons of interesting stuff a few keyboard strokes away. Not sure I understood your point about Bangladesh though.
 
  • #38
new6ton said:
Why do you guys like science fiction?
For me, there are multiple reasons. I've been interested in both space and science since I was young.

And I like good stories. For me, the story is the most essential thing when it comes to movies.
You can put great actors and stunning effects in a movie, but if the story is bad, the movie will suffer. One recent example of this is, in my opinion, The Last Jedi. A movie with extraordinary effects but with a script that is seriously leaking and problematic.

On the contrary, if you've got a good story but maybe not the very best actors nor the best effects, you can still make a good movie. Examples: Total Recall (which has a good story in my opinion).

Another reason I like science fiction is because the stories often are visionary. Here, I mainly think of the SF books I've read.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
WWGD said:
I can see the consideration of alternative realities as being what is attractive in SF. But times have changed.
Nowadays, it seems the reality of many incredible things going on that takes away a lot of the attraction from SF. Tons of interesting stuff a few keyboard strokes away. Not sure I understood your point about Bangladesh though.

Maybe I'm escaping from reality?

But then I'm looking forward for some incredible things like Michio Kaku presenting himself at the UN assembly similar to this famous opening speech by Jean Grey:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we are now seeing the beginnings of another stage of human evolution. These mutations manifest at puberty and are often triggered by periods of heightened emotional stress."

 
  • #40
new6ton said:
Maybe I'm escaping from reality?

But then I'm looking forward for some incredible things like Michio Kaku presenting himself at the UN assembly similar to this famous opening speech by Jean Grey:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we are now seeing the beginnings of another stage of human evolution. These mutations manifest at puberty and are often triggered by periods of heightened emotional stress."


I am excited but concerned too, that these changes are implemented with caution.
 
  • #41
Klystron said:
The director's attempts at contrasting inner city Old Detroit with suburban housing is thwarted by the high-tech nature of the story. Experimental cyborgs and large armories require large capital investment.

So agree, @Klystron. "What about the economics?" is often my thought in sci-fi, and esp. where the story has vast fleets of spaceships fighting each other with huge crews of skilled Navy types. Nonsensical...

Just like Ad Astra's monkey's-in-space sequence, which happens on a space station (the design of which reminded me of Thunderbird 5) but it is sitting out in space somewhere between Earth and Mars. Getting anything out there is going to be expensive, people need bonus $$ to work out there, and resupply is going to be problematic. The payoff for such R&D has to be insanely profitable. But it's cheaper still to put it in LEO, so why out there? Vanity project? Secret lair for a villainous master criminal? Stupid plot device for a sad sack story? Who knows, when it makes no sense...it really makes no sense!
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron
  • #42
Tghu Verd said:
So agree, @Klystron. "What about the economics?" is often my thought in sci-fi, and esp. where the story has vast fleets of spaceships fighting each other with huge crews of skilled Navy types. Nonsensical...

Just like Ad Astra's monkey's-in-space sequence, which happens on a space station (the design of which reminded me of Thunderbird 5) but it is sitting out in space somewhere between Earth and Mars. Getting anything out there is going to be expensive, people need bonus $$ to work out there, and resupply is going to be problematic. The payoff for such R&D has to be insanely profitable. But it's cheaper still to put it in LEO, so why out there? Vanity project? Secret lair for a villainous master criminal? Stupid plot device for a sad sack story? Who knows, when it makes no sense...it really makes no sense!

What I don't like about Ad Astra is how can the source emit such powerful signal enough to affect the entire solar system. That's the downer. Unless someone can justify or give reasonable explanations. Perhaps when you manipulate the vacuum, it can do just that? If they mention about "vacuum". It would become more reasonable.
 
  • #43
new6ton said:
Unless someone can justify or give reasonable explanations.

There is no reasonable explanation, that's the issue. They invoke antimatter as if it's grey goo, so I found I needed to take the movie as one man's inner journey to understand and forgive himself, ignoring the nonsensical plot elements that trashed science on a regular basis.
 
  • #44
Tghu Verd said:
There is no reasonable explanation, that's the issue. They invoke antimatter as if it's grey goo, so I found I needed to take the movie as one man's inner journey to understand and forgive himself, ignoring the nonsensical plot elements that trashed science on a regular basis.

You didn't enclose "antimatter" in spoiler. We have done experiments on antimatter and it can't produce that kind of power. They should have used "vacuum metastability" something and it would sound more serious or intriguing. I guess movie writers have such poor imaginations.
 
  • #45
The anitmatter in the film is well and truly in the public domain, but I agree, vacuum instability would have made a lot more sense!
 
  • #46
DennisN said:
On the contrary, if you've got a good story but maybe not the very best actors nor the best effects, you can still make a good movie. Examples: Total Recall (which has a good story in my opinion).
It shall go without saying that you are referring to the original (as evidenced by your link to the '90s v. w/ Arnie).

Yes, it is one of my top 20 films.
 
  • #47
DaveC426913 said:
It shall go without saying that you are referring to the original (as evidenced by your link to the '90s v. w/ Arnie).
Yes. I've seen the remake, but I don't recall it (pun intended). And since I can hardly remember what I thought of the remake, it is fair to say it did not make an impression on me :smile:.
 
  • #48
DaveC426913 said:
It shall go without saying that you are referring to the original (as evidenced by your link to the '90s v. w/ Arnie).

Yes, it is one of my top 20 films.

I've never seen the film, but the original story "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" by Philip Dick is a very enjoyable read. To me a lot of sci-fi is exploring human nature and human society: what would be the effect on us if [some premise]? Eternal life for instance.

But a lot of sci-fi, especially the short fiction, is just entertainment, a fun idea. And I enjoy those fun stories that aren't asking any deep questions as well. That's how Dick's story reads to me, as kind of a joke.

I have no idea how faithful the film is to the short story, but based on the casting of Schwarzenegger I would guess "not very".

And some sci-fi, such as a lot of the "hard" sci-fi by authors like Larry Niven, are exploring some "what if" scientific premise. What would it be like on a Dyson Sphere (a sphere completely surrounding a sun to capture its energy) for instance? When people pointed out that the Dyson Sphere was not gravitationally stable, Niven changed it to a ring and wrote an entire series of novels (the Ringworld series) exploring the implications of that.

It turns out the ring isn't stable either, so Niven eventually had to add a propulsion system.
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron
  • #49
DennisN said:
Yes. I've seen the remake, but I don't recall it (pun intended). And since I can hardly remember what I thought of the remake, it is fair to say it did not make an impression on me :smile:.
How can you forget a fight on the outer hull of a hypersonic shuttle going 35 times the speed of sound, as it passes the glowing red molten core of the Earth? 😄
 
  • Haha
Likes DennisN
  • #50
Tghu Verd said:
The anitmatter in the film is well and truly in the public domain, but I agree, vacuum instability would have made a lot more sense!

That is why before the producers spend several millions in the production. They should ask advices from us in this forum. Lol. The non-physicist public have intuition. If the movie is in essence bad, they can smell it, so they better get some feedback from PF sci-fi fans first.
 
  • #51
Many movies have a science advisor, Ad Astra didn't!

But I note that that appalling Netflix series, Another Life also had a science advisor, and it is a stinker, so I'm thinking that the 'sniff test' is entirely ignored for some productions and applied for others, though how we know which is which in advance, escapes me.
 
  • #52
WWGD said:
I can see the consideration of alternative realities as being what is attractive in SF. But times have changed.
Nowadays, it seems the reality of many incredible things going on that takes away a lot of the attraction from SF. Tons of interesting stuff a few keyboard strokes away. Not sure I understood your point about Bangladesh though.

Maybe I'm mistaken to name Bangladesh as example. I just want to convey that in another country, it's not like the USA the land of the free where you can watch any video and not being killed. In NK, I heard people were killed by watching english movies.

So what I meant was that on earth, it didn't represent the condition of what a normal planet should be. Or planet of the free.

Our future have all possibilities. The fact World War II even happened with hundreds of millions of death meant nothing was watching us, nothing at all. We are on our own.
 
Last edited:
  • #53
What reboots are you excited to watch coming next year? Me. Its

1. Flight of the Navigator
2. Highlander.
3. Top Gun 2 where they will use the latest stealth fighter
4. The Invisible Man
5. ET Phone Home
6. what other supposedly good ones have you seen reviews of?

Can a jacket made of thermo optics (etc) really make one invisible? To what extend?
 
  • #54
DaveC426913 said:
How can you forget a fight on the outer hull of a hypersonic shuttle going 35 times the speed of sound, as it passes the glowing red molten core of the Earth?
Did that happen in the movie? I seriously can't remember. Maybe my brain protected me by blocking it out. 😄
 
  • Like
Likes DaveC426913
  • #55
new6ton said:
Shouldn't we make it a crime to make bad reboots?
No. If a remake is truly terrible, there's a good chance it will take in less at the box office than it cost to make. IMO, that's enough of a penalty.
new6ton said:
Reboots are supposed to be good.
Who supposes that? The primary reason for a movie to get remade is to make a bunch of money without having to come up with an original idea.
 
  • #56
A very good TV must see reboot now is Threadstone, related to Jason Bourne. First episode is very good. They fight like Black Widow (Scarlett) of Avengers. Purge season 2 is also showing now.

If a person or android can compute your every move, then they should be able to win in fights with you?
 

Similar threads

  • New Member Introductions
Replies
2
Views
138
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • New Member Introductions
Replies
1
Views
465
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
8
Views
8K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Back
Top