Alien might be another example.... but... the implications were a subset - as proven by the subsequent movies.... the fear of... what would happen if this infection/problem/creature continued home? I think cities are the same as worlds and universes in fantasy because it's a similar metaphor. In Predator.... was there the concern that this Predator would continue on to take out the rest of the humans?

snowduck.... answering your last question... well... YES. Sort of. It's a good point. If you keep shrinking the size of the population, would you end up with a family. I think it has to go down to the size where there is still a large enough population to create "the others." The unknown. Xenophobia. In a family size, when there is good vs. evil, it feels like you're definitely enterting a much more psychological arena vs. political. There is something much different about an evil known to you vs. an evil unknown to you. Perhaps that is what we're talking about then. Good vs. Evil on a political scale. Perhaps sci-fi fantasy leans towards the realm of politics with certain exceptions. Perhaps it is good vs. evil in the realm of the unknown.

snowduck... I enjoy the exporation. I really am not offering any conclusions here... Frankenstein (1931) - I think this is the horror genre really. It is a bit of the sci-fi I suppose in that it deals with meddling with a technology. But not the classic sci-fi fantasy I'm thinking of Alraune (1930) - I will need to rent this Solaris (1972) - Tarkovsky. I really loved Tarkovsky's book "Scultping in Time" and if you like his films you owe it to yourself to read his book if you haven't it's gorgeous and touching. The most emotional book about filmmaking I've ever read. That said... I never really loved any of his films oddly enough. Bladerunner (1982) - One of my all time favorite films - I never saw it in the theater yet though despite it playing now and then. I will need to see it that way some day. This is a primary example of a sci-fi film which is definitely examining the "what if" of sci-fi - but avoiding the "this movie ends when the bad people are destroyed" concept. Lawnmower Man, AI (2001) - I disliked this movie too much to have a coherent thought on it. :) It does seem like Frankenstein though that this is a movie which explores meddling with technology. I do seem to remember though that there was a darkforce who had other plans for the technology. Stepford Wives - definitely has a dark force. This is in the Matrix category for me of the "world is not what it seems." A Clockwork Orange - unlike everyy other person who directs music videos apparently, I'm not fascinated by this film. It could be that like Godard's films it challenged ideas and methods of it's era more than the current era. ....running out of time, so going to jump to Brazil. Brazil is definitely of that genre where the dark force rules. So... Why would the big political sized good vs. evil movies end up being so popular immediately compared to the smaller scaled films of the same genre?

Gattaca is an interesting movie to bring up. Gattaca FEELS like a personal film. Very much about a guy and his brother and the girl. However the film is absolutely about the oppressive society because the central idea is not a personal one... the question is - is it right to destroy people if they are flawed in order to create a healthier world. So the imiplications are absolutely global despite spending most of our time dealing with personal ramifications. Blade Runner, on the other hand seems to shrink the question somehow more. I think because we don't ever discuss the politics. We are only dealing inside the the world, not questioning it. The audience could ask these questions, but no one pontificates about it. And the central problem of the story does not echo it either. The central problem is: There are some robots that need to be exterminated. The dilemma comes i the form of Sean Young. However, never do we sit back and really explore the global ramifications of this.

THX1138? Man jolted out of his place in society, then trying to deal with it. Pitch Black. The aliens aren't evil, they're just hungry. Solaris. Not sure what the main characters were up against but it wasn't good or evil. Sunshine. Crew of generic space-craft versus plot!

Actually - none of the ones I listed were successful!!! The public like easy to digest stories.

Yes, it's possible that the public just likes easy to digest stories - but... what if there is something else going on. I think sometimes filmmakers get very mental vs. emotional. I've always felt it was a mistake to try to make films would could be read like encyclopedias. There is a well known art filmmaker who is much celebrated, but every single film I've seen of his I feel like I'm playing "Where's Waldo" looking for all the little clues that I will recognize to make me feel smart. When I ask people why they like them, they invariably refer to all these little clues and how brilliant it is. But I do not see that the clues are much more than a crossword puzzle. I wonder if the general rule for the audience is if they feel an emotional connection to the movie and if too much concept can get in the way of that connection not because they want something simple, but because they begin to spend more time processing information than emotion. Just pondering out loud.

> I feel like I'm playing "Where's Waldo" You referring to David Lynch?! > Why would the big political sized good vs. evil > movies end up being so popular immediately > compared to the smaller scaled films of the > same genre? I guess people imagine the future to be massive (huge civilisation, galaxies full of people / life, complex political systems to govern everything), therefore the stories which take place in the future should be massive too. A small romantic comedy would be a bit pointless in the year 3010 ... once you get a few gags out of the way, you're back down to relationships; hover cars and light speed travel don't really enhance the story!

Dan F - Actually... no.... I actually really like some of David's Lynch stuff because I think it is not like an encyclopedia of literal interpretation at all. I think especially his earlier work is coming from a definite place of emotion. His first film - eraserhead - is a perfect example of sincere emotion in surrealty. If you must know, I was referring to Matthew Barney. I didn't want to say it because I try not to say negative things about people on forums, but - you know, he's Bjork's man and much loved by much of the world, I don't think my disinterest in his films is really going to bother him much. I think your observation is really keen - what does the sci-fi aspect add to a romantic comedy? That makes absolutely perfect sense. Unless you're working with the metaphor, then you really are just putting up a distraction from the main story. Interesting. Maybe sometimes the more personal science fiction films are not so popular because they are fighting their own interface to reach the audience.

I'm a fan of David Lynch but must admit half the time I just "don't get it" and need to re-watch the flick a few times, then go and do some reading for an explanation! Even then my grip on what he's doing is limited ... Inland Empire. Watched that 4 times and it still leaves me confused :) I enjoy all sci-fi movies cause they offer points of view / answers for questions I have about the future ... the then epic good vs. evil scale films are just pure entertainment.

I think Lynch's work became increasingly referential over his career and feel that his earlier work was more emotional based. Watch Eraserhead if you haven't. His first feature, self made. I think Blue Velvet is all about how he feels in the world. I think a lot of his later films start getting slightly more coded and less human. I even thought his episodes of Twin Peaks were really strong. I wish he had made Ronnie Rocket. If you haven't read it, you can find it on the net. My friend was the lead in one of his movies and I asked her to ask him if he would make it ever and he said he stole too much from it now to ever make it.