Replies

Exactly. Star Wars and Star Trek are space fantasy, not science fiction. There's no science involved at all. I remember Ray Bradbury balking at his Martian Chronicles being called Science Fiction, saying that only one chapter - the post-nuclear war scenes in "There Will Come Soft Rains" qualifies as true Sci-Fi. The rest was planetary fantasy.

An example of true Sci-Fi (albeit with a fantastical element) would be Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, in that most of what we see is at least somewhat grounded in what was thought possible in computer science and space exploration, as well as Clarke's speculation that sufficiently advanced (alien) technology seems like supernatural magic to others.

I'm generally not a fan of Star Wars-type space fantasy just as I don't care for any other fantasy genre, while actual Sci-Fi can be interesting when well-made.

Of course, any of the above are preferable to most of today's Box Office Bilge, 90% of which is based on comic books.

Of course, any of the above are preferable to most of today's Box Office Bilge, 90% of which is based on comic books.

I grew up on comic books (hence my screen name). I am so sorry that Warner doesn't know how to make a comic book movie. Worse, in the process they destroy decades of character establishment for a movie gimmick, and have ever since the first Superman movie with Christopher Reeve.

If I were Warner, I'd have gone through the DC archives and look through 500 issues of Action, 400 of Superman, 150 of Lois Lane and Jimmy Olson, 200 of World's Finest, and I would come up with stories based on the comics themselves. I would also hire writers like Cary Bates and Elliot S! Maggin and Len Wein and Editors like E. Nelson Bridwell (when he was alive) for character continuity, and rules for the DC Universe.

If I were writing the screenplay, I would also make it a period piece, taking place in in 1940 (pre WWII), when you could plausibly present a superhero as a novelty.