We should have gotten better space adventure movies than the J.J. Abrams Star Trek and Star Wars movies during the late 2000s to mid 2010s

CmdrShepN7

Member
Original Poster
We should have gotten better space fantasy movies than the J.J. Abrams Star Trek and Star Wars movies during late 2000s and early to mid 2010s!

Who else here agrees?

Imagine a timeline where instead of those movies we have had gotten excellent adaptations of sci fi that had a sense of wonder like "Mass Effect", Iain M. Banks's "Culture", Vernor Vinge's "A Fire Upon the Deep", or "Dune".




Guardians of the Galaxy was good but I don't remember it having as strong a sense of awe and wonder as the sci fi mentioned above.

If I was given the ability to go back in time and change anything I want I would still have the MCU still be made but I would replace the J.J. Abrams Trek and Wars as well as Jupiter Ascending and Valerian: City of a Thousand Planets with much better space adventure movies.

I would also replace "Gravity" in 2012 with a biopic about Neil Armstrong or a astronaut movie on the level of quality as "Interstellar" or "The Martian".

It is sad that the best we had during the 2000s and early 2010s was Michael Bay and J.J. Abrams.

It seemed like there was a stigma against sci fi back then or at least a snobbish attitude toward it.

Did those attitudes made it hard to attract good writers, directors, and actors to this genre?

Or did Hollywood began to think the attention span of movie goers became shorter?

Why did Hollywood did such a bad job at cultivating sci fi talent during the 2000s?
 

Phroobar

Well-Known Member
Why did Hollywood do such a bad job at cultivating sci fi talent during the 2000s?
8pmee6.jpg
 

Screamface

Well-Known Member
Why did Hollywood did such a bad job at cultivating sci fi talent during the 2000s?

Gravity was 2013 and god damn if you asked me off the top of my head I would have said 6 years ago. Damn. ANYWAY...

This is a generalisation, but one that is mostly true. The way people get into writing these days has shifted. You're getting people who are coming more from arts backgrounds. They aren't well-read or scientifically literate. Their inspiration is mainly on what they have seen in film and TV shows.

In literature, a whole bunch of criteria and agendas for what gets published has got across the industry. You just need to look into the purity spiral of YA publishing. It's anti-creativity when you put demands on what the content must be and who must create it.

A major problem is that no one has original ideas. It's pop culture ideas from the last 30 years recycled.

JJ Abrams has talent, but his bench doesn't go all that deep when it comes to creating ideas. His better stuff, Lost and Fringe, was really just as a producer for the actual writers. His Star Wars wasn't original. The next guys was also uncreative with nothing to ad. Then it's just, whatever. His Trek, he couldn't even get to a second movie without just remaking another movie. As he did with SW. There was also no scientific or engineering logic behind what happened. Which really takes away from the sci-fi aspect.

Michael Bay is about nothing but spectacle and action.

There's still be good sci-fi over this time, mostly on the small screen.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom