Comments on: Cameron Confesses ‘Titanic’ Wasn’t a Passion Project

By: AFI’s 100 Years, 100 Movie Quotes (Musical Montage)

AFI’s 100 Years, 100 Movie Quotes (Musical Montage) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:13:57 +0000

[...] Cameron Confesses ‘Titanic’ Wasn’t a Passion Project (screenrant.com) [...]

By: the old man

the old man — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:59:38 +0000

Oh man, do I even want to be here??? No wonder these genre’s get no respect, even the fans can’t get it right…

By: Sean C

Sean C — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:47:46 +0000

Star Wars, to me, is more Space Opera. Yes, it is a derivative of Science Fiction, but it is not SciFi in the true, traditional sense. I mean, they don’t hail from Planet Earth or our universe, and different species regularly live side by side, without blinking.

Science Fiction, for the most part, hails from the idea that a world or setting exists which has evolved from the advancement of Science, leading to certain profound statements about the human condition (for example, RoboCop, among other questions asked, does ask us how much of a person needs to exist in order to be human? What I mean is, with all the machinery and technology within Robocop, his brain is the only part that is organic. Is he therefore still human?). Gattaca looked at the repurcussions of cloning and the idea of perfect kids, then showing the prejudice of those whose parents could not afford to genetically engineer them, and not allowed to advance in the world despite their talents and intelligence.
Good science fiction should set out to ask those exact questions.

“Robots, Gadgets and so on” does not count as Sci Fi. James Bond is hardly Sci Fi, nor is Rocky 4, but both have robots and gadgets.

By: John "Kahless" Taylor

John "Kahless" Taylor — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:12:33 +0000

Star Wars isn’t sci-fi? I must have seen a different movie. If you mean the Force making it fantasy, I would say it too is sci-fi. The prequels explained that the Force is just a bunch of particles, and the more of these particles you have, the stronger your ability. If this makes SW fantasy, then Star Trek is also fantasy as it has creatures who can do just as much as the Jedi, and some who would be considered gods.

By: Joshi

Joshi — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:34:49 +0000

You know, I’d like to point out, there’s no real hard distinction between sci-fi and fantasy. For years now I’ve been buying Discworld books and until late they’ve almost always been in the Sci-fi section. From the first book until the very latest (20 years and 37 books), the books have included dragons, wizards, witches, dwarves, trolls, gnomes, fairies, swords, and sourcery (and yes, they were all present in the very first book), but somehow spent many years on the sci-fi shelf. Along with Tolkien, Lewis, Gaiman and a whole host of other fantasy writers.

As far as I can see, Star Wars is simply a blend of them both, fantasy and sci-fi, but I certainly wouldn’t expel it from the genre of sci-fi altogether simply because it doesn’t fit the description of hard sci-fi.

By: Peter

Peter — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:26:51 +0000

mmm, Nope Star Wars is Science Fiction. Has Robots, Space Ships and Gadgets that don’t exists but perhaps could. If you find the inclusion of religion in Star Wars as means of redefining it as Fantasy I’d point you to Dune (the Book) and then if you quibble about the Force I’d have to say that any number of Science Fiction stories have people with ESP, TK and all manner of other psychic abilites(CatPaws and Many Coloured Land spring to mind, but I sure there are many otehrs), not that far different than the force if you ask me.

Now its not exactly Asimov’s brand of Scfi, more Space Opera than hard sf, but its still scifi, Fantasy has Dragons and Wizards Now I won’t disagree that you could rewrite Star Wars as a Fantasy, removing the Space Ships and Robots and dropping in Wizards, Dragons and amusing halflings, and some of the best sci fi can’t.

By: LeeAnna

LeeAnna — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 03:50:25 +0000

Thanks for someone realizing that Star Wars is not pure sci-fi. It is fantasy and is thus more comparable to LotR than to Star Trek.

As for his comments on Titanic, I agree that I might respect him more because the movie’s story is very run-of-the mill, and Avatar’s seems that way as well. The graphics and sets may be amazing, but I’m going to have to see how he twists such a cliche message on imperialism and resource stripping. To be honest, I really am not that excited for Avatar.

By: Sean C

Sean C — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 01:44:31 +0000

I gotta say, but Star Wars is not Science Fiction. It’s entirely fantasy. Cameron needs to get a dictionary. Sci-Fi is taking Science, imagining what could be done, and then creating a world where it has been done. It’s essentially imagining our world as it could be if Science were to go in a certain direction, and examine the repercussions of those decisions.

Star Wars falls under Fantasy, it is about as much Science Fiction as the Lord of the Rings.

By: Joshi

Joshi — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:04:51 +0000

“I made Titanic because I wanted to dive to a shipwreck, not because I particularly wanted to make the movie”

If it’s possible, I think I respect him even more. As much praise as is languished on that movie, it’s seriously run of the mill. The “epicness” come from the fact that it’s the Titanic and the whole sinking thing, but the love story bit was very old hat. Told very very well, but old hat none-the-less. Avatar seems like it might be the same, but I give it a pass because it’s sci-fi.

By: Heath

Heath — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:02:25 +0000

I recall Premiere magazine’s interviews (featured/cover stories) were usually fluff. Interview-wise, I liked the old Cinescape magazine. I loved that one.

Let’s see what Avatar does.

heath