Ridley Scott says Sci-Fi is dull
You have to agree with the man who made Blade Runner, he has said that science fiction has all been done before and there's nothing original. Can you argue with him on that point?
“There's nothing original. We've seen it all before. Been there. Done it. There is an over-reliance on special effects as well as weak story lines.”
I would tend to agree with him, particularly on his comment about story lines and special effects, but there could be hope out there with When Worlds Collide and The Day the Earth Stood Still, and yet they are both remakes, is that actually proving his point? Is there really nothing original since Blade Runner?
I've been reading Richard Morgan's books, and although the stories are fantastic, some of the best I've read in a long time, it borrows from film noir, westerns, and ideas from other science fiction stories, and yet there are some great and original aspects to it.
I wonder if there is truly anything new out there to be had. Is it all about the packaging and the style now, or can there really be totally original stories, or is the best we can hope for some clever twists and turns amongst well visited stories?
I think there is, but there has to be some investment from Hollywood, they have to turn to look at some great writers and give the adaptations respect and time, as well as involving the original authors in the development. Richard Morgan, Iain M. Banks, Greg Bear, these works could make great films, but not if Hollywood resorts to the stock and the cheap.