Richard Fincher
Imperial College of Science and Technology, London University |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since first seeing the 70's reruns of Star Trek, I've been a dedicated fan of
science fiction. The appeal of science fiction to me is contained in the question,
"Do humans become different creatures when in different environments,
or will they essentially behave the same?" Until the 1800s,
it was generally assumed that mankind started out perfect in the Garden of Eden, and was
basically getting more and more corrupt and degenerate leading up to Armageddon and the
end of the world. The role science played in popular culture involved a reversal of this
theme, the notion that in the future mankind would eliminate disease, poverty, injustice, violence
and mistreatment. Although some futuristic works such as 1984, Brave New World and Logan's Run
paint a picture of a horrific world, others like Star Trek assume that in three or
four hundred years, we will have evolved beyond the need for money, outgrown ethnic
and religious conflicts, and acquired universal respect for each other.
I'm growing increasingly dismayed with the route which mainstream science fiction is taking. It seems that someone has decided that special effects are what audiences come to see. I feel sure that a typical 90s movie starts life as a list of special effects on a story board, and is usually fleshed out with a kiddie's fairy story for a plot and cardboard cutout characters. Among the earliest examples of this trend are the Star Wars movies, and the original Star Trek movie, which is nothing more than a series of reaction shots as the cast gaze in amazement at a variety of swirly things. As part of this movement, quality series of the 60's and 70's like Blakes 7 and The Invaders are commonly written off simply because of their unconvincing model shots. |