I think you're right, but I also think it doesn't bode well for the genre. To use one of your examples, the Western film went from iconic (Ford) to desconstructionist (Leone) to homage (Kasdan/Silverado) to revisionist (Eastwood/Unforgiven). These changes had as much to do with content as visual style, and an awareness of what the genre meant in the culture of its time. Until SF filmmakers are willing to apply as much thought and invention to aspects other than the look, the genre will remain stuck (it's significant that of your four landmark SF films, one was made over 80 years ago, and the most recent is over 25 years old).

No, sorry, you are all wet this time. That is no doubt what the stupid suits that run the stuios THINK we want. But what I want is a story with reasonably consistent ideas. Look at Star Trek the motion picture. They threw in a metric buttload of effects, and just recycled a script from the series. The result: crap. The only good thing about that movie was that it showed Paramount there was still money to be made in Star Trek. Have they ever given us a good SF movie that wasn't a special effects demo reel? Not for decades. So how can they (or you) say fans wouldn't accept it?

I agree--in fact, I've argued that Elizabeth is essentially a sci-fi movie that just doesn't happen to have any science fiction in it. Going by style, it feels the way we've been conditioned to expect a sci-fi movie to feel.

Well, we're back to the "Which genre is it?"
If it's a "Sci-Fi Action" flick, e.g. Star Wars, Pitch Black, Fifth Element, etc. ad nauseum, then look and feel are a big part.

But it's not a "Science Fiction" movie without the story circling round an *idea*.

* Gattaca - when everyone's genome is checked for health and potential, what chance does an average joe have?
* Blade Runner - what does it mean to be a human being, or to pass for human? If your life is only a few years long, what (can, should, do) you do with it?
* The Quiet Earth - What if you were the only man on earth, and it may be your fault? (As opposed to, say, "What if you were the only man on earth, and chased by zombies?")

Sometimes there's a blend (Blade Runner certainly is an action movie too, there's some thoughtful stuff in Star Trek: First Contact), but the idea has to be more than just the setup for the action, for me to really call it Science Fiction and not Sci-Fi.

If your assertion were accurate then television shows like Star Trek and Dr Who would have been out and out failures. Mediocre to bad visuals due to tight budgets and limited time. But great stories.

It's always about the stories. The quality of the story brings viewers and readers and keeps them, not the effects or the art.

This is why Star Trek and Dr Who go on to become cultural icons lasting decades and nobody remembers Krull: The Conquerer and about three people in the entire country admit to sitting through The Island.

Small quibble: Genre is a set of conventions, not a crutch. And westerns can take place outside the "American Old West" -- look at The Proposition and Mad Max. Both of them take place in the Australian outback, and one in the future. But they're just as much westerns as The Searchers or Unforgiven.

Primer had no special effects at all, and is one of the finest sci-fi movies of the last decade.

I loved Dark City when I first saw it and own it now, but rewatching it, i can't say that the execution of the plot draws me back in. But I am clearly in love with the visuals... what a fantastic look. So i have to admit that despite all the decrying of visual effects over substance, it does draw me in.

So what is it about reading SciFi then? Do we read SciFi for plot or because it stimulates our imagination to create the visuals for the futuristics scenes set in the stories? I know I have very particular cinematography in mind when I think about the OMW universe.

You're off base. Genre definitions are folk taxonomy. Regardless of the format under discussion, we're looking back at a group of something and trying to figure out what they have in common. So, visual effects/design may be a common part of science fiction movies, but any group of ten people can come up with at least ten sci fi movies they love that don't have visual effects. And ten people could come up with a list of a thousand movies that suck despite the visual effects. In fact, are there any movies made in any category that don't use visual effects? Sure, sci fi movies tend to have a pronounced design scheme, but so do musicals.

So what makes a film a genre film? People saying it is.

I would argue that Star Wars is meant to be heard as well as seen because of John Williams. Lucas has said the music was the only element of the movie that came out better than he wanted it; he's also said that he envisions the movies as silent films more than dialogue-driven works, so naturally the dialogue ends up being the weakest link of the production.

Well, I was going to agree. And then I thought: E.T.
Great effects? Not so much. But everyone saw it (number four on the top grossers, adjusted for inflation).

Wintermute:

Primer also made half a million dollars gross domestic (and was not released internationally), which means less than 100,000 people saw it in theaters. While not arguing with you that Primer is a fine good film, it's very difficult to make the argument that it is indicative of what the average SF film genre fan wants out of his/her SF movie experience.

Kaethe:

"any group of ten people can come up with at least ten sci fi movies they love that don't have visual effects."

Please do, then. While you are noting them, please cross-index them with the movies that suck despite visual effects, and note the average gross of each list. Then ask again what draws people into this genre of film. We're talking in generalities, here, not about specific lists from specific people.

pwstrain:

When maintaining that a film does not have great effects, it does help not to select a film that in fact own the Oscar in its year for Best Visual Effects. Note well it robbed Blade Runner, which should have won. But it's difficult to say that ET's effects overall were not impressive.

Chike:

"westerns can take place outside the 'American Old West' -- look at The Proposition and Mad Max."

I haven't seen "The Proposition," but there's no way Mad Max is a western. It's post-apocalyptic sf, period, end of story. I certainly agree Mad Max shares thematic elements with westerns, but it's not the same thing.

Primer: the problem was not just finding out about it, but _finding_ it. I went looking when it was in theaters. Nope. And I live about an hour from where it was filmed. But yes, genius sci-fi movie.

Why is it a weakness of scifi that it have good effects? Nobody ever complains if period dramas look too opulent (or have too much costuming), or if thrillers have good chase scenes, etc.

That being said - I do think that Hollywood does use effects as a crutch - it makes it a Big Budget Movie Event You Must Go See Now. Since Hollywood wants every movie to be $100m+, one easy way to do so is to make it the aforementioned BBMEYMGSN. Comedies have Comedy Star Doing That Guy He Always Plays. Action/Thrillers are frequently based off Big Name Books or have That Star You Like To See Beat The Odds.

One of my favorite scifi novels is "Three to Conquer" by Eric Frank Russell. You have aliens, chase scenes, telepaths... and it could easily be filmed today on a low budget. But if it were done, because it's SciFi, it would have to be a Big Budget flick, which means that you'd have flying cars, the aliens would be CGI, it would have Will Smith saying "hellllll nawwwwww", etc, etc. 100+m and it would be a tentpole pic.

And the reason they do it that way is either because they must have the $100m+ opening (notice how even the independent films want to be The Next Big Thing) or because audiences know a good SciFi movie because the effects look good, which allows them to transport themselves. I'd LOVE to see more movies that are science-fiction, but without all the glam elements. But if Hollywood feel obliged to make every one of them a Big Budget flick, at least it'll look good.

_Mad Max_ wasn't a Western, but _The Road Warrior_ might be: stranger comes to town and helps plucky townsfolk battle evil bandits. Where have I heard that one? Of course, you could do that storyline as noir, too, with "stranger==PI" and "bandits==mob". Which I suppose means that I agree that themes are not the same as genres; genre is about meeting expectations and following conventions (or, sometimes, deliberately and explicitly violating those conventions.)

I don't think that I can argue with you much, since it seems to me, speaking purely anecdotally, that most people go to SF movies looking for visuals.

However, I also wanted to point out to JJS that Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a brilliant SF film recently made which, though it did have some interesting visual effects, was much more than an effects demo. Of course, joelfinkle mentioned Gattaca, which is another excellent example. Cube is probably another good choice to illustrate recent SF which isn't just an effects-fest.

The summary point being that these films exist. They just don't happen to be the summer blockbusters - which latter are, in fact, showcases for what can be done in film. Actual fans of the genre would be well-served to look beyond just what shows at the local mall multiplex. Leave the summer movies like Transformers or Independence Day to the casual SF-movie audience (or, even, do both!)

I think I agree with you for a fairly simple reason: you can find good stories in any genre, but what makes a story feel like sci-fi are the objects, concepts and places we don't have access to in the here and now.

In fact, you can almost tell the same story in any genre, but it's the trappings that make people point and say "that one's a western, that one's a sci-fi, and that's a fantasy movie."

In most cases, I'd rather watch a story being played out with sci-fi trappings than with western ones, even if both movies star the same actors playing the same characters. Those are the trappings I prefer.

Another way to think about it is this - it's pretty rare for one movie fan to explain to another that a particular movie really was sci-fi, even though it had none of the usual identifiers. Even movies with few spectacular effects still have small elements that show the viewers that this isn't our here and now.

So, good call.

I disagree, and yet perhaps not so totally. SF aficionados love the 'idea', that key twist on reality that is as unexpected as a bag of hot air was at one time. The very best though, is not just watching the idea, but floating up with it, be it a balloon, a space station or a hyperdrive burst.

What's the next best thing to being there? The movies! Seeing the the world come alive, amazing details, scary monsters that can't really exist. Seeing the manifestation of that quirk of an idea.

So while the SF purists are right that "the idea's the thing", in a film, the view of the world is what it's all about. The visual payoff makes the idea just almost like being there, almost real.

Genre labels depict style and method in my opinion. A sci-fi flick/story is supposed to be based on or revolve around science/technology in order to tell a story. That story, without the sci/tech, falls apart and becomes worthless. Bladerunner is sci-fi not because it takes place in the future or it has flying cars and other fancy gadgets it is because we are dealing with an android, or robot, that has sentience and is, for intents and purposes, dealing with its own humanity. The Replicant then asks the same fundamental philosophical questions of man but it's wrapped in a deadline constricted package for the Replicants to deal with. I suppose one could make the same story proposal for a person with terminal illness and it'd be a drama or something, but the idea belongs to the almost human Replicants.

I argue that Star Wars is not, and has never been, sci-fi. It is fantasy, pure and simple. Sure, there are space ships and lasers and whatnot, but the story revolves around destinies, magic (Force=magic), epic world(universe)-saving fates that are influenced by outside forces. Nothing in the story of Star Wars revolves around science or technology. You can take that exact story, the dialogue, and the characters and change the setting to a medieval world, give them swords, bows, and spells and you'd still have the same story.

Genre is not visual, but it most certainly helps. And, as you asked, how much will someone tolerate to get their sci-fi fix. A lot apparently. But, as mentioned, Primer was a great sci-fi flick, it asked all the great questions that sci-fi revolves around and shows us the 'what if' based on that speculation - no visuals. But, Starship troopers had semi-decent FX: big alien bugs, dystopic-militant psychics, a co-ed shower scene, but that movie was epic suck. The book, I'm told, is far better, but visuals were definitely a crutch because that's essentially all the movie was. What about Battlefield Earth? Holy crap, need I say more?

I thought Solaris was a horrid, horrid movie. I turned it off (since I waited to rent it) after the first ten or fifteen minutes. There were spaceships, outer space, some scene I think with a sun. Stink!

Visuals are not what the sci-fi movie-goer is looking for, but they are the added bonus that can certainly make a movie that much better. What about Jet Li's, The One, not a bad movie, decent visuals, and a solid sci-fi concept that makes one wonder.

John,

I think that you confuse the crutches that the filmmakers and studios use to sell scifi with the elements that scifi fans love in scifi stories/movies.

When you use the number of people that saw Primer as a criterion to eject it from the sf genre (was that your point?), do you mean that the people who saw it were no scifi fans?

Primer is essential scifi, and yet does not use the SFX crutch at all. And everyone here will also agree that it is a fine scifi movie.

There are many scifi movies that don't use special effects, and they are usually the great scifi movies: Gattacca, Fahrenheit 451, 12 monkeys, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, The Quiet Earth, Soylent Green... i'm sure many other examples can be found in the top 100 of all-time scifi movies.

So i would correct your statement by saying that the scifi genre, as *marketed* by the studios, uses visual effects as a crutch. But this is not a ground breaking statement, is it?

Re: The Road Warrior as a Western.

Your argument is that the same plot could make a different movie that was a Western. That doesn't make it a Western.

Yojimbo wasn't a Western. A Fistful of Dollars was

How could you not have seen the Proposition?! I do hope this omission is on the way to being rectifited.