Posted on 09/24/2017 12:04:34 PM PDT by EveningStar
By its very nature, the sci-fi genre is relatively complex: the short stories, novels, TV series and films that comprise speculative fiction necessitate detailed expository passages to build its far-flung futures, reality-bending premises, and stories set in a galaxy far, far away.
Whether the story is set on an alien world populated by creatures markedly different from human beings, in a future separated by centuries or eons from the present in which society, technology, science, and civilization itself have evolved into a nearly unrecognizable state, or center around time or space travel, sci-fi stories require complex set-ups to create a believable reality that’s very different from our own.
Because of this, the sci-fi genre also allows for its stories to become quite complex. Time travel stories thrive on complexity while, depending on the story, other elements may be willfully obtuse to create an air of mystery or disorientation in the viewer–and some sci-fi stories are much more complex than others.
Here are 10 sci-fi films that are purposely complex ...
10. Predestination (2014) ...
9. The Man Who Fell To Earth (1976) ...
8. The Fountain (2006) ...
7. Coherence (2013) ...
6. Upstream Color (2013) ...
5. Primer (2004) ...
4. Inception (2010) ...
3. The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across The 8th Dimension (1984) ...
2. Solaris (1972) ...
1. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) ...
(Excerpt) Read more at tasteofcinema.com ...
I saw one when I was around 10.
“Invasion of the Saucer Men”. It was great but then it is not hard to impress a 10 year old.
I was in school when 2001 came out. We had a field trip to see it. I was the only one who had a clue what was happening, as I had read the book. Had to splain it to everyone after the movie.
bookmark
I just pulled off one of my thousands (not kidding) of science fiction books off the shelf and took it with me on the plane (aka sardine can) for a long flight. I couldn’t put it down—and I am still stunned over how great this obscure novel is:
Frank M. Robinson-—The Dark Beyond The Stars
It was written in 1991.
The use of fictional technology to induce the dream state would qualify. And within the "rules" of the world in the movie, the characters' navigation of those layers of dreams is explicable by science (as opposed to, say, magic).
But yeah. I consider Inception to be SF, but just barely. It's more of a heist movie with some SF themes and a healthy dose of mindbending.
Arthur Frayn: I bred you! I led you!
Zed: And I have looked into the face of the force that put the idea in your mind. You are bred, and led, yourself.
Flesh Gordon
2001 isn’t complex?
I heard it goes on forever.
Not really. It’s a pretty straightforward story when you get past the spectacle. Really the vast majority of the movie is 2 people and a computer, not a lot of complexity there. Mythological mysteries that never get answered aren’t complexity, they’re contemplation points. To me if you want complexity you usually need to head to heist or scam movie. That’s where plots get complex. Most movies are rather linear.
2001 was abstract in a way that was unprecedented for an American studio film. The visual style or “spectacle” conveys the themes so you can’t really ignore it. You’re saying that only a plot can be complex and not over arching themes?
84 minutes.
But abstract isn’t complex. Themes are not complex. Yes only the plot can be complex.
I don’t agree with that all. It’s certainly not true in literary fiction. The plot of Hamlet is quite simple. Same goes for Don Quixote.
And they’re both pretty simple stories. The flaw of this article is complex = good. And it’s just not true. Many complex stories kind of suck (Now You See Me), and many simple stories are very good (like most of this list). And simple stories can also have deep contemplative themes. Actually in a lot of ways deep contemplative themes NEED simple stories, because you want people to think about the themes not the story. There’s nothing wrong with the fact that Hamlet and Don Quixote are not complex, that doesn’t mean they’re bad (though I do have a whole rant on the character of Hamlet who never really impressed me), doesn’t mean they aren’t interesting, doesn’t mean you can’t come out of them with lots to think about and discuss. It just means they aren’t complex.
They are two of the most analyzed, interpreted and debated literary works in history. If they can withstand that sort of scrutiny then they are complex. You can’t just reduce something to its’ narrative line. Complex doesn’t mean good at all. But all great art is complex. Even if it seems simple.
Lots of scrutiny doesn’t mean they’re complex, it just means there’s interesting stuff there. I can reduce whatever the hell I want. Not all great are is complex, that’s a frankly stupid misuse of the word complex. All great art is well executed, not everything should be complex. Many things work because they’re simple. One of my favorite examples is the bridge in the song “Bad Company” by the (mediocre) band of the same name, it’s one of the most awesome bridges in the history of rock and roll, it’s also 3 simple chords and any 1st year guitar student could play it. Often times adding complexity makes something worse, again I’ll stick to rock and point to Yngwie Malmsteen. On a technical level one of the finest guitar players to ever walk the earth, and he cranks out unlistenable tune after unlistenable tune. Because he’s so addicted to his own talent and his ability to lay down complex guitar lines nobody else can play he never stops to actually give the listener room to listen, or make things cohesive and harmonic.
Great art has to touch people’s heart. And often times the best way to touch people’s hearts is with simplicity. There’s a reason everybody knows the beginning of Beethoven’s 5th and serious classical music nerds know anything after the first minute or so. The beginning punches you right in the face with 5 simple no screwing around chords. The rest is still quite good, but it’s too complex for the average listener. That beginning though is so wonderful in its simplicity it’s the basis of all power chord rock. That simplicity resonates through history where complexity gets lost in the shuffle.
As I said, complex doesn’t always mean good. There’s a composer named Max Reger who wrote heavy, contrapuntal music that impressed pedants but didn’t have the content to justify the complexity. As opposed to say Bach. But Nabokov put it well when he said he would mark down any student of his who would write something like “Great art is simple and honest.” Great art, he insisted, is complex and deceitful. Beethoven’s fifth is a great example of a very simple ‘plot’ (the thematic material) being a great whole because of what is done with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.