I have been interested in Science Fiction since an early age - I should think from the age of 7 or 8 years old. In those days it was mainly SF novels, but also television programmes and the occasional cinema film.
Early television programmes (for me that is, a '52 baby) were in the early to mid-60s; things such as 'The Andromeda Strain' and 'Dr Who'; the Anromeda Strain was specially scary, I recall. About the same time if a little later, we had the original 'Star Trek'. All now look tremendously dated and the visual effects very amateurish, specially the low-budget British ones.
I read a wide range of SF, too (and still do), some instantly forgettable and others extremely thought-provoking, e.g. 'Planet of the Apes' and some of the earlier of Azimov's stories; whilst I am a big fan of all his novels, the later 'Foundation' ones became formulaic. I have quite an extensive SF library with almost all Azimov's books and a lot by Clarke, Wyndham, Adams, etc.
In recent years I've built up a collection of SF videos, quite a few full-length features, but very dominated by pretty complete collections of all the Star Trek series ('Original', 'Next Generation, 'DS9' and 'Voyager') and the feature movies made as spin-offs, too. With the more recent movies the visual effects have become quite stunning although many have, to put it kindly, very poor story-lines (the latest 'Star Wars' movie 'The Phantom Menace' being a case in point). On the other hand the 'Star Trek' regular television series have, in general, remained superbly inventive in terms of story-lines. Paradoxically I think the James Cameron movies with 'Arnold' have been amongst the best in terms of visual effects AND story-lines, in terms of internal consistency and complexity.
I could write for HOURS about SF in general, but if anyone is interested in discussing this further, then send me an email with your views.
| | |