Over the many years of English literature and various forms of media, the ideals of the times and of the creators of these works have changed; some drastically, some possibly not as much. The genre of science fiction is no exception. Take, for example, two of the most widely-known science fiction novels in the history of English literature: The Time Machine and The War of the Worlds, written in the late 1800s in Victorian England by H.G. Wells—novels which, quite arguably, revolutionized the science fiction genre—and their modern theatrical counterparts. While it may be more beneficial to compare two works of the same medium, the differences in themes and style are still evident. The former two reflect Wells’ own views in society and his comments on them using allegories, while the latter two tend to appeal to a more general audience and appear to have a theme based on emotions, family and more recent world issues. The modern films The Time Machine and War of the Worlds directed by Simon Wells and Steven Spielberg respectively are indeed adaptations of the original novels. Obvious differences in the storylines aside, the films tend to introduce aspects that would appeal to a broader audience today, such as more action, fighting, adventure and romance than was in the books, helping to develop some of the themes. The ideas and themes that appear in media are often based on events that occurred during the time in which the work was created, as well as the creator’s own ideals. As a result, through the comparison of the original novels by Wells and their film adaptations, it is possible to see how society as a whole has changed over a century’s time, and how the themes present in these works of science fiction have changed as ... ... middle of paper ... ...sses of the earth. In the future to which the time traveller travels, people are shown to be living on the moon, and as a result of an experiment gone horribly wrong, the moon splits into two pieces and the earth is engulfed in flames, causing most of the earth’s population to be wiped out. This shows how we must be careful in our rapid exploration of the universe and in our attempts at scientific progress today. A simple miscalculation could cause the whole experiment to backfire and cause the whole world to be destroyed, which could potentially happen given the amount of research going in to many development projects. What could be another message is to conserve the natural resources which remain on this earth. While progress is positive, it is meaningless if the population cannot sustain itself due to the amount of resources being used by the new technology.
Literature and film have always held a strange relationship with the idea of technological progress. On one hand, with the advent of the printing press and the refinements of motion picture technology that are continuing to this day, both literature and film owe a great deal of their success to the technological advancements that bring them to widespread audiences. Yet certain films and works of literature have also never shied away from portraying the dangers that a lust for such progress can bring with it. The modern output of science-fiction novels and films found its genesis in speculative ponderings on the effect such progress could hold for the every day population, and just as often as not those speculations were damning. Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein and Fritz Lang's silent film Metropolis are two such works that hold great importance in the overall canon of science-fiction in that they are both seen as the first of their kind. It is often said that Mary Shelley, with her authorship of Frankenstein, gave birth to the science-fiction novel, breathing it into life as Frankenstein does his monster, and Lang's Metropolis is certainly a candidate for the first genuine science-fiction film (though a case can be made for Georges Méliès' 1902 film Le Voyage Dans la Lune, his film was barely fifteen minutes long whereas Lang's film, with its near three-hour original length and its blending of both ideas and stunning visuals, is much closer to what we now consider a modern science-fiction film). Yet though both works are separated by the medium with which they're presented, not to mention a period of over two-hundred years between their respective releases, they present a shared warning about the dangers that man's need fo...
Philip K. Dick is one of the more prolific science fiction writers of the second half of the 20th century. His dark plots, themes, and characterizations differ greatly from those who preceded him. This has seemingly translated well onto the big screen, as at last count, nearly ten of his novels and short stories have been adapted into films. Several of these films have garnered critical acclaim for both their movie credentials and use of source material. Blade Runner, originally released in 1982 and based off a 1968 novel entitled Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? along with A Scanner Darkly, a 2006 film based off a book of the same name released in 1977, are two such examples. They provide an excellent base to compare the adaptations in terms of visual style, plot authenticity, and characterization. Both movies took alternate routes, yet both were very well received, though one’s financial success is far greater than the other.
Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” is an early 19th century cautionary tale examining the dark, self-destructive side of human reality and human soul. It is written in the Romantic era where society greatly valued scientific and technological advancement. Throughout the novel, Shelley expresses her concerns of extreme danger when man transgresses science and all ethical values are disregarded. The implications of debatable experimentation and thriving ambition could evoke on humanity are explored in the novel. Likewise, “Blade Runner”, a sci-fi film directed by Ridley Scott in 1982 is a futuristic representation of Los Angeles in 2019. The film reflects its key widespread fears of its time, particularly the augmentation of globalization, commercialism and consumerism. The film depicts a post-apocalyptic hell where bureaucracy and scientific endeavoring predominate in an industrial world of artifice and endless urban squalor.
In this essay I will discuss the way in which the generic marker ‘The visual surface of Science Fiction presents us with a confrontation between those images to which we respond as “alien” and those we know to be familiar’ can be applied to Blade Runner and to what end.
Why do we fear the unknown? In the process of answering this question, science-fiction genre films successfully capture the history of American society at distinct points in time. The genre is so closely linked to social and historical contexts that its development relies solely on this connection. Sci-fi myths and conventions have remained static for decades, and the only measurable change in the genre lies in the films’ themes (Gehring 229-230). For example, Robert Wise’s The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) argues that fear of the unknown is a flaw in human nature and criticizes the social paranoia of post-war, 1940s America. Conversely, Steven Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) views the human existence through more positive outlook, wherein society can overcome such fear; this optimism reflects the escapist beliefs of the 70s. When juxtaposed, the films’ themes demonstrate the evolution of the sci-fi genre by expressing different social attitudes towards conventions such as foreign beings, unfamiliar technology, and unusual scientists. The films also represent the genre during two major aesthetic periods in cinema—the post-classical and the late modernist eras, respectively—but nonetheless serve a greater purpose in measuring America’s social progress.
A noticeable difference in the way movies have changed over the years is evident when comparing and contrasting two films of different eras which belong to the same genre and contain the same subject matter. Two vampire movies, Dracula and Bram Stoker's Dracula, present an interesting example of this type of study.
Film could be considered to be the most significant cultural text of the decade. Each of these three films directed by Peter Weir have significance and importance, as they almost force society to look itself in the mirror and get a shock. I encourage readers to watch these films, and think about the importance of their messages.
Kornbluth, C. M. "The Failure of the Science Fiction Novel As Social Criticism." The Science Fiction Novel: Imagination and Social Criticism. (1969): 64-101.
Within every history class, English class, and even some science classes, the art of storytelling is a primary foundation for human communication and understanding. Whether it be through myths – Greek, Roman, Egyptian, you pick – or wives tales or even Grandpa telling his old war stories, stories have power. Now, through technological advancements in the last 150+ years (thank you Thomas Edison for your obsession), we have film as a mode to tell stories. Fictional or not, films tell a story; they have the power to give you not only entertainment but enlightenment too. Through continuing advancements, filmmakers have the ability to challenge and manipulate the power of the story through creative resistance; by exploring other elements of storytelling via film, filmmakers can create dramatically different films from similar ideas by using a multitude of techniques. Films are even used to create social commentary.
Film and literature are two media forms that are so closely related, that we often forget there is a distinction between them. We often just view the movie as an extension of the book because most movies are based on novels or short stories. Because we are accustomed to this sequence of production, first the novel, then the motion picture, we often find ourselves making value judgments about a movie, based upon our feelings on the novel. It is this overlapping of the creative processes that prevents us from seeing movies as distinct and separate art forms from the novels they are based on.
Science fiction never ceases to amaze me as I take great enjoyment in exploring these creative universes. I have always had a great interest in military science fiction for its take on technological innovation and critical analysis. Military science fiction in general is very speculative about future of technology and warfare. The military science fiction genre also serves as a critique of contemporary politics as it deals with many of the same issues that go on today. This has made military science fiction one if the most well respected genres of science fiction for it ability to indirectly criticize modern society. My Integrated Project explores the relationship between how technology that has arisen from war has been some of the most innovative and why war has become an unshakeable aspect of human existence.
Technological advancements have always played a big role in the literary progression of mankind. As knowledge is gained, technology has improved, and as technology improved so has the literature. Starting from the Anglo Saxon era, and continuing through the postmodern era. From oral to written stories, to the printing press, to the Industrial Revolution, man’s literature has changed progressively throughout each phase, taking on a different point of view and attaining more understanding. Stanley Kubrick, the director of 2001: A Space Odyssey, understand the concept of technological advances on mankind. And his movie can be considered as a parallel to this concept of advancements.
Star Wars (1977) is one of the world’s most successful films of all time. It has made a terrific impact on popular culture since its release. Furthermore, Star Wars changed the narrative and aesthetic style of future Hollywood films. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, illustrates how cinema has evolved since Fred Ott’s Sneeze (1894). Ultimately, this essay will explain the set up of Star Wars and how it connects to cinema history, in the point of views of the: narrative and cinematic style, genre, auteur theory and the global film industry.
The question is whether it is possible to distinguish between fantasy and true science fiction. I am reminded of the analogy, attributable I believe, to Theodore Sturgeon, of the elf ascending vertically the side of a brick wall. In a science fiction story the knees of the elf would be bent, his center of gravity thrown forward, his stocking cap hanging down his neck, with his feet quite possibly equipped with some form of suction cups. In a fantasy, on the other hand, the elf would simply stride up the wall in a normal walking posture, with his stocking cap standing straight out from his brow. What is the difference between these scenarios? The typical answer is that the science fiction story must play by the implicit rules of the universe; in this instance, gravitation. Fantasy, however, need not "tip its hat" to the Law of Universal Gravitation the story can bend the rules in which gives it the fantasy genre.
The first chapter of George Bluestone’s book Novels into Film starts to point out the basic differences that exist between the written word and the visual picture. It is in the chapter "Limits of the Novel and Limits of the Film," that Bluestone attempts to theorize on the things that shape the movie/film from a work of literature. Film and literature appear to share so much, but in the process of changing a work into film, he states important changes are unavoidable. It is the reasoning behind these changes that Bluestone directs his focus, which is the basis behind the change. He starts to look at the nature of film and literature, as a crucial part in the breakdown of this problem. It is only through a discussion into nature of each of these, that Bluestone can discover where film and literature seperate, and also develop a close to accurate theory on the laws that direct the course of change from novel to film.