Categories
politics rants

Incredibly disappointed, entirely unsurprised. BTW, our healthcare system sucks.

The ruling for the Hobby Lobby case has come rolling downhill from SCOTUS, like a giant turd. (PDF here, dissents start on page 60, thank you Elise.) A couple of months ago and after a Facebook kerfuffle, I had a nice in-comment chat with a friend of mine who is a lawyer. And he explained to me why he thought the ruling would probably go the way it did today, and it made sense. Ultimately it was about the letter of the law and the way it applies, rather than the principle that has us all foaming at the mouth. You know, that whole “women are people and your boss has no business making your medical decisions” thing. Yeah. That doesn’t really matter so much.

Not a lawyer. Not going to try to rehash my very smart friend’s point. Just saying now that I am still incredibly disappointed, but thanks to Aaron, I am entirely unsurprised.

Rather than railing about SCOTUS and the way this country seems set on just fucking over women at every opportunity, I think there’s another important take home here:

Being forced to depend upon employment and the good will of your employer for your access to healthcare is a shitty, shitty system.

The reason I’ve come to believe that healthcare is a human right is because it’s about survival, and about control. Someone else controlling your healthcare, your decisions, puts them in no small measure in control of your life. Well, America is supposed to be all about “freedom.” We’re so about freedom we got freedom coming out of our goddamn ears. And there’s this unending drumbeat talking about about how freedom is destroyed by dependence on the government. Keep your government hands off my healthcare!

So tell me, what kind of freedom is it to have your healthcare in the hands of a corporation? How is having your ability to get healthcare and, it seems, even some of the decisions you make completely controlled by a corporation better? (And don’t give me that fucking line about “don’t like your job? find a new one!” have you even looked at the fucking economy for the last five years? IF you’re even lucky enough to have a job!) You don’t want to be dependent on the government, great. Why the fuck do you want to be dependent on a corporation? An entity whose sole driving force is making a profit.

When I worked for AT&T and was still in my conservative phase (yes, I did have one, I have the humiliating voting history to prove it), even then I’d get taken aback by some egregious abuse of corporate power against employees or the environment and get told: well, you can’t blame the corporation. It’s just there to make money. Just doing what it has to do to fulfill that purpose. (Which even then made me ask and deregulating that is a good thing how? But that’s another song and dance.)

But fine, if all corporations do is make money and fuck everything else, why the fuck do you think it’s a good idea to put someone who literally only gives a shit about money in charge of your health? In charge of your life?

The government ain’t perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But at least I can pretend I have a tiny voice, a sliver of input, a crumb of power in a democracy. Maybe YA has missed the boat, with its ceaseless totalitarian government dystopias. At this point, I’m far more concerned about the benevolence of our corporate overlords.

Categories
convention

LonCon 3 Schedule

Subject to change, of course. (Why yes, I am sitting around in a hotel room [possibly in my underpants because I forgot to pack pajamas] and catching up on all the shit I should have been doing for the last month. Why do you ask?)

Saturday

  • 16:30 – 18:00 – Just Three Cornettos
    • The Simon Pegg/Nick Frost/Edgar Wright “Cornetto trilogy” concluded last year with The World’s End, following Sean of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. What is the trilogy’s place in British SF? The panel will discuss why the films’ endings are so unconventional, what the trilogy had to say about topics such as society and consumerism, masculinity and maturity, and the British landscape … And they’ll decide which fence gag is best.

Monday

  • 10:00 – 11:00 – Mythology and Folklore in Anime
    • Fantastical anime often have mythical or folkloric entities at their core, Japanese or otherwise: the demons of Inu Yasha, the many retellings of Journey to the West, the dragons of Spirited Away. Which tropes and stories seem to crop up most often? Which creators are most creative in their use of mythological and folkloric elements?
  • 13:30 – 15:00 – Tapped Out – from Magic to Netrunner
    • Discussing some of the best things about card games, past and present!
  • 15:00 – 16:30 – The Scientific Culture
    • Is there a scientific culture? The success of The Big Bang Theory, XKCD and PhD Comics suggest that there is, but if so, what is scientific culture? What values and attitudes can there be in common between fields as diverse as biology and cosmology? What experiences and views are shared by scientists across such disparate fields, and why are they different from the experience and views of non-scientists? Is this important, and should SF writers and fans be taking notes?

 

 

Categories
convention

DetCon1 Schedule

At least the schedule… so far!

Friday

  • 6:00 PM – Anti-Science Sentiment in the US – Mackinac West
    • Anti-Science sentiment seems to be on the rise in the USA. Why? What is going on, and what can we do to reverse this unsettling situation?

Saturday

  • 2:00 PM – Women in Science and STEM – Mackinac West
    • What are the unique challenges for women in STEM fields, how can they be addressed, how can we get more women interested in these fields, what can you do to prepare?
  • 3:00 PM – Welcome to Night Vale: You Should Know About It – Mackinac East
    • Turn on your radio and hide. Our panelists share their love for Welcome to Night Vale, the viral podcast drama that combines surreal humor, human relationships, and weird creeping horror into a delightful community radio show. If you know Night Vale, come. If you don’t know Night Vale, come and bring your friends. There will be no hooded figures.
  • 4:00 PM – Women in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – Nicolet A
    • The Marvel Cinematic Universe and its associated television titles are full of highly competent, talented women that move in a world of men. Women regularly save the day, from Black Widow in Avengers to Pepper Potts in the Iron Man franchise. How does Marvel excel at putting women on screen in superhero movies? Where could they show improvement? Panelists will discuss issues of presentation, diversity, and cultural expectations as they examine the many marvelous women of the MCU.

Sunday

  • 11:00 AM – Reading – Joliet A
  • 12:00 PM – Fat, Feminism, and Fandom Revisited – Mackinac East
    • How have things changed since fannish feminists and fat activists first started this panel series? What did it accomplish, within fandom and outside of it?
Categories
convention

SoonerCon Schedule

A little late posting this but… if you’re in OKC and at SoonerCon, say hi to me!

Saturday

  • 10:00 AM – Reading : Rice – Readings
  • 1:00 PM – Fantasy and Film: The Language of Dreams Made Visible : Mann – Film/TV/SFX
  • 3:00 PM – Damsels De-Stressed: Women In Steampunk : Cain – Horror/Steampunk
  • 5:00 PM – Politics, Religion, and & Science? : Cain – Horror/Steampunk

Sunday

  • 10:00 AM – Koffee Klatch : Cantina
  • 2:00 PM – Building A Mystery: Mystery and the SF/F Genre : Maynard – Writing
  • 3:00 PM – If Everyone Is a Skeptic, Then Who Is Telling the Truth? : Ballroom C – Main Programming
Categories
rants someone is wrong on the internet

Only YOU can prevent fires.

I remember firefighters coming to my elementary school. They showed off all their cool gear and even wore their SCBA units so that we’d know what they look like in a fire and not be scared of them. They taught us stop, drop, and roll. They taught us to call 911. And they also drilled us on one other very important thing: don’t set fires.

What do you do if you find matches or a lighter? Give it to mom or dad or your teacher!

What do you do if you see someone playing with fire? Tell an adult!

Are matches toys? No!

Are lighters toys? No!

This is what fires do, kids. They hurt people. And you can stop fires from happening by not setting them. And you can stop fires from happening by not letting your friends set them. And you can stop fires from happening by getting help if you see a stranger setting them.

So of course, this isn’t actually about fires. It’s about rape. And apparently self defense is a fire extinguisher. Don’t blame me, man, I’m not the one who came up with that metaphor. If you’re in the mood to grind your teeth, here is a do-not-link-ified link of Larry Correia being a jerk about the “naive idiocy of teaching rapists not to rape.” Instead you could just read Jim C. Hines’s response, which is quite succinct.

I went off on a Twitter rant about this last night, and it’s still pissing me off, so I’m going to get it all down here.

Let me be clear: I’m not trying to equate rape and surviving a fire. The experience of assault and being caught in a fire are two very, very different things. But maybe there’s something to be said about the concept of prevention.

The point of fire prevention is that it’s a multi-pronged approach. Laws make arson illegal. Regulations require every day objects to not spontaneously combust, be less likely to burn, etc. Fire extinguishes, sprinkler systems, and smoke detectors can stop fires before they get bad, or help people escape. And early education plays an important role. When firefighters aren’t off saving lives or training, one of their other major duties is public outreach and prevention education.

Because this is the thing: the best way to fight fires is to do your best to keep them from happening in the first place. And a big part of that is telling people to not fucking set fires. And to not let other people set fires. And to call for help immediately if you see a fire.

So let’s go with self defense being like a fire extinguisher. (And yes, Mr. Correia, I do agree that it would be incredibly silly to trash one’s fire extinguisher because they’re not effective against forest fires.) Are private citizens expected to carry fire extinguishers on them at all times? No. It’s awesome if you’re prepared, but you don’t have to be. If an arsonist burns someone’s house down, doe the victim get harassed because they couldn’t put the fire out on their own? Are they asked repeatedly if they’re sure they didn’t do everything they could to stop their house from getting burned down? Do they get publicly shamed because they couldn’t afford to have a sprinkler system installed? Does the arsonist who burned their house down get a sympathetic media portrayal because this has ruined their life? No. (Well, maybe if they’re a football player in certain sectors of the country.)

(By the way? The above is basically part of the “rape culture” that Correia dismisses out of hand.)

I think you get my point.

If you want to get self defense training, that’s great. (I’m not being sarcastic.) I actually do agree with Correia on the point that there is absolutely nothing wrong with getting self defense training, and people who advocate for it shouldn’t get shit on—at least up to the point that advocacy turns to preaching or shaming. I know that there are some excellent courses out there. There are also some incredibly shitty courses. And there are miles of difference between a self defense course that’s aimed exclusively at rape defense and martial arts classes that claim to be for self defense, by the way. A good self defense course is going to be focused, specific, and involve a lot of rote practice and paired exercises.

You never know how you’re going to react in a terrifying situation until you’re there and it’s too late. The point of training is to turn techniques into muscle memory, so even if you can’t think, you can still react. Sometimes self defense training can work really well. Sometimes even if you’re scared out of your mind, you’ll remember one useful thing, and that will be enough.

Sometimes, people never get to that point. They might not mentally be in a place where that works. They might not have time for that kind of practice or the money to pay for it—make no mistake, these are skills that can take time to develop, and free time is something of a privilege these days. Sometimes you bring your fists to a gun fight. Sometimes the person who hurts you is someone that you love and thought you could trust. There are people who cannot defend themselves for a multitude of reasons, such as disability or infirmity or the existence of an insurmountable power differential. And that’s okay.

And don’t tell me that the solution is for all women to carry guns. (Thanks MoJo.)

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.

Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.

• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.

• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

Statistics aside, fuck you. Not in my house.

So is self defense training wrong? No. There is no single solution to a big problem, and there will always be bad people out there. But self defense is also a last resort to be used when everything else has failed, not the first and only solution. It should be our undying shame as a society if violence is treated as the optimal answer while the entire concept of prevention by education is dismissed. Not when people stand by and turn a blind eye to assaults. Not when people admit to rape as long as you don’t call it rape, or think rape is okay under certain circumstances. Education may not change the mind of evil people who like to rape, just like education doesn’t change the minds of bad people who like to set fires.

But it does take away their unwitting accomplices.

Don’t set fires. Don’t let others set fires.

Don’t rape people. Don’t let others rape people.

Categories
movie

[Movie] So I was right about Maleficent

Warning: talking about rape again.

Or rather, the way I interpreted the wing-removal scene in the movie. Angelina Jolie has confirmed that it was very deliberately indicative of rape.

Now Jolie has confirmed that the scene deliberately echoes the too-familiar beats of the date-rape narrative. “We were very conscious, the writer [Linda Woolverton] and I, that it was a metaphor for rape,” Jolie said during an interview with BBC Woman’s Hour.

There’s another quote right after this one in the article that’s worth emphasizing, I think.

Jolie had spoken forcefully at the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict, on Tuesday, demanding an end to rape as a tool of war. “It is a myth that rape is an inevitable part of conflict,” she said at the Summit. “There is nothing inevitable about it.”

I think the way the movie staged the scene is very in line with what Jolie said there. It’s very clear that Stephen’s decision to cut off Maleficent’s wings is a very, very deliberate one. He went out to meet her already prepared to do something terrible. He made a conscious decision to drug her. He made a conscious decision, when he couldn’t bring himself to kill her, to still do something that hurt her in a very fundamental way. Stephen chooses to do this because he wants power, and the crown. It in no way something that was destined to happen from the beginning of their relationship, or even because he threw in his lot with the humans.

And it’s sad that it feels very unusual for a movie to depict rape as something that isn’t just about the “heat of the moment” but rather a choice on the part of the attacker (either pre-meditated or a snap decision) to hurt someone. We’re still getting fed the bullshit rape fantasy where it somehow turns consensual partway through more often than I care to think about.

I have to take extreme exception to one thing the article says, as a throw-away:

Maleficent may have muddled messages—the fact that Maleficent’s entire motivation as a villain is rejection by a man is not a great feminist message—

Are you fucking serious? Did we not watch the same movie? Did you just forget the part where the entire previous paragraph of the article is about how Stephen cutting off Maleficent’s wings is a fucking rape scene? Now, if we want to gripe about her entire motivation for villainy being about what a man has done to her, okay then. That’s definitely a legitimate complaint. But raped by a man and rejected by a man are not even on the same plane of existence.

Categories
movie

[Movie] Riddick

So, I’m really glad I didn’t bother seeing this movie in the theater. I’m now regretting even paying for it on pay-per-view. Because it actively pissed me off as I watched it. Let’s just do this bullet point style:

  • It was obvious from moment one that the only reason Riddick found the alien puppy was so that, eventually, the now-grown alien dog could join the large crowd of people in Riddick’s fridge. Painfully telegraphed. I’m also not sure what it says about these movies that they’ve gone from fridging women to fridging dogs. Hopefully they saved the puppy a spot in the fruit drawer.
  • Dahl. Fucking Dahl. I just couldn’t even with this character. The at times painfully wooden mercenary woman started off showing how strong she was as a female character by punching the crap out of the dirtbag mercenary. That’s fine, I can get behind that, since it does kind of make sense with the mercenary thing. But then Santana the dirtbag spends the rest of the movie until his death being increasingly rapey at her until Riddick kills him. And bonus for the fact that Dahl clearly states she “doesn’t fuck men.” Maybe this means she’s a lesbian. Maybe she’s just asexual. Maybe she just wants them all to back the fuck off. But then Riddick says that he’s going to go “balls deep” in her because she asks him to. The only thing that kept me from punching holes in my TV in anger was that this did not actually happen, thank goodness, though I was sorely tempted when she basically straddled Riddick in the course of rescuing him at the end and he slid his hand over her butt. (Sure, maybe it was a joke between equals where she was basically going Nope, still not for you. I could have gone with that, up until the butt-touching.) With each movie, the female characters have become progressively less fully realized just to make more room for Riddick being a power fantasy. It’s incredibly disappointing, particularly when you think about how freaking awesome Fry was in Pitch Black.
  • If I cared less about Papa Johns’s desire to get revenge for his son (killed in the first movie) I might stop breathing. It was incredibly unconvincing. (And then he comes back for Riddick…why?) Also, this left me with the strong desire to order a pizza. Damn you.
  • I guess the weird alien monsters were trying to move us back to the good ol’ days of Pitch Black, but these were even more ridiculous, and not in a good way.
  • Incredibly ridiculous scene with motorcycle-ish things. Very motocross. Much silly. Such adolescent fantasy. Wow.
  • In this movie I learned that a Brazilian wax is apparently the way of the Necromonger woman. I did not need to know this, and yet now I do.
  • The cheese factor of the action and dialog has gone from cool and fun to cringe-worthy. I left Chronicles of Riddick in spasms of roleplaying nerd glee over the whole “I’ll kill you with my tea cup” line. And I rewatch this movie often. It’s still good stuff. This movie lacked the minimum level of cleverness. It felt more like it was trying to be a cheap knock off of its own greatest hits. We’ve been here before, and it was a lot more enjoyable the first and even second time around.

It’s difficult for me to define the difference (aside from the ever worsening treatment of female characters) between Chronicles of Riddick and Riddick, that makes the first delicious cheeseball fun and the second an exercise in frustration. With each movie the writing has become less focused, and the characters have become progressively less fleshed out. And then by the time you get to Riddick, it’s not even really a movie any more, it’s just basically the uncomfortable experience of watching someone’s wanky, adolescent, misogynistic power fantasy put on film, where Riddick is the paper cut-out stand-in with biceps to die for.

All I can think is that if I’d ever written fanfiction with this level of flat wish fulfillment, fans around the internet would have ripped off my head and shit down my neck all the while endlessly screaming the words “Mary Sue.”

It’s not fun any more, Riddick. Go home.

Categories
movie science fiction

[Movie] The most disappointing thing about Edge of Tomorrow is its title

Couldn’t you have come up with something better for a title? Really? I felt like I should be seeing an episode of Star Trek. Or perhaps Lady Gaga would appear at any moment, wearing disturbingly avant garde yet somehow still sexy robotic battle armor with unbelievable high heels, and belt out a song while pyrotechnics go off in the background.

Come on. The book this was based on was titled All You Need Is Kill. That’s an awesome title. Why not just stick with that?

Complaints about the title aside, I actually really liked this movie. Which surprised me, since I had read the review from Strange Horizons and went in all braced to reach the same kind of frothing rage levels to which Oblivion originally drove me. Which couldn’t be good for my blood pressure, but these are the things I do for you people. But I was pleasantly surprised, and I’m not sure if I will ever find it in my heart to forgive Tom Cruise for making me like him again, even if just a little.

The shortkey for Edge of Tomorrow‘s plot is “Groundhog Day as military scifi with an alien invasion.” Which is not inaccurate. Though Groundhog Day displayed a notable lack of powered battle armor that caused people to run like they were about to shit in their pants. And an even more profound lack of Emily Blunt’s arms. And I hope we can all agree that from this day forward, all movies should be required to give at least two full minutes of screen time to Emily Blunt’s arms.

Anyway, the plot.

Due to a MacGuffin, Tom Cruise (named Cage, as a nod to Keiji, hero of All You Need Is Kill) repeats the same day over and over again. Rita (Emily Blunt) had the MacGuffin until recently, but lost it for reasons that I’ll call good enough to pass. She works with Cage and a scientist who is the only person who believed her when she was repeating days to try and stop the alien invasion.

For the most part, it works. If you can accept the wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey that goes on, the movie is actually a lot of fun. Cage dies a lot, and a lot of those times involve Rita shooting him in the head to reset him because he’s just fucked up that badly in his training. There’s snark, and some highly amusing deaths that made me laugh out loud. It was internally consistent with what it did, didn’t belabor the days repeating once the audience had gotten the point, and so on. The pacing was good, there were twists, I liked it.

Honestly, I have only two real complaints, which are a bit spoilery:

  1. Considering Rita makes it very clear early on in their partnership that she is so incredibly disinterested in having sex with Cage that it’s not even funny, I really could have done without the bit of romance that got thrown in there. I feel like it should have been more than enough for Cage to have a deep, mutual friendship with Rita, considering they’re literally the only two people on the planet that understand what the other person is going through. I consider it a small mercy that the actual bits of romance took up very little screen time, but I sure rolled my eyes when it did come up.
  2. The last five minutes. What the hell, man. Just. What the hell. It was precisely the expected cowardice we see in most films like this, where a potentially meaty ending gets completely short circuited by the desire to see the hero survive triumphant and get the girl. This ending also completely circumvents the MaGuffin rules (the timey-wimey gets way too wibbly-wobbly at this point) that have been faithfully obeyed throughout the entire rest of the movie, which made it extra annoying.

I came out of this really liking Rita as a character, by the way. For all that she was inextricably tied to Cage since he was the one with the MacGuffin and not her, I feel like throughout the film she was the force really pushing him along and keeping him moving. While he had to live day after day to choreograph their way through various scenarios, she hung ferociously on to her goal the entire time and kept pushing him. In the two occasions where he very overtly tries to “save” her to her face, she refuses to accept it. At the end, she even firmly tells him that neither of them are making it out alive and gives him a look that clearly communicates suck it up, cupcake. I really liked her. And her arms. But mostly her. (Also, I appreciated that the movie managed to refrain from making her a sex object except for pretty much one shot, which I will forgive because her arms. You don’t understand. I want to run away to the mountains and marry Emily Blunt’s arms.)

Tom Cruise did a credible job as Cage, leaving the scenery largely ungnawed. I personally felt like he did a good job of depicting (in perhaps uncharacteristically subtle ways) when given a chance just how the endless cycle of life and death was messing with him. It wasn’t nearly as explicit as what we saw in Groundhog Day, but it was there.

Smarter and much more internally consistent than your average big budget scifi/action tentpole, Edge of Tomorrow has left me pleased when I thought I wouldn’t be. But goddammit, that means I’m going to have to give Tom Cruise yet another chance. Curses!

Categories
feminism movie

[Movie] Maleficent

Going to start this one off with a disclaimer, which is this:

I am not an original dyed-in-the-wool Maleficent fangirl. I do not have a massive ladyboner for this Disney villain the way quite a few of my friends do. So I’m taking this movie as itself. It’s been well over a decade (man, probably closer to two) since I last watched Sleeping Beauty, so all I really can say about the original animated lady of menace is that she sure had some style. 

TL;DR: I have absolutely nothing to say about how this movie relates to the character as seen in Sleeping Beauty. So please don’t yell at me.

All right.

I really, really liked this movie. Even more than I expected to, and I was already looking forward to it.

Angelina Jolie? Fucking amazing. I am already so in love with that woman I could write odes to her (non-enhanced) cheekbones, so this did not surprise me. She made a stylish Maleficent, from menacing to downright intimidating even when she was being “good.” And man, those contacts she had. Holy crap, her eyes.

Other than Maleficent, Diaval (Sam Riley), and Stephen (Sharlto Copley), there wasn’t a lot to most of the characters. I found the three pixies particularly grating. There were some odd pacing issues, and the movie seems to kind of get lost and meander during the second act until it remembers where it’s going and launches into the third.

The movie was pretty enough, but could never quite decide if it wanted to look realistic or be overtly cartoonish. I think either style can work just fine (even cartoonish does all right mixed with live action if the movie just jumps in with both feet) but never being willing to commit to one or the other or draw lines between the two realities of the film didn’t serve it well visually. I found myself wishing there was less cgi. A lot less cgi. Particularly when they were in the fairy lands, pretty much everything was computer generated and some of it just…didn’t quite make it out of the uncanny valley, I think. (And missed a golden opportunity for some gorgeous puppets and practical effects.) Or maybe it just looked a little too fake. I found the miniaturized pixies disturbing. They just did not look right in some fundamental way that really bothered me. Score was all right but nothing to write home about.

So, not the best offering I could have hoped for. Honestly, Snow White and the Huntsman did a much better job visually, I think.

What really made me like Maleficent was the story itself, and I found several aspects of it very interesting:

Going to cut this now for major spoilers.

Categories
movie science fiction

I am sorry you were held captive in a windowless basement in 2013

I was going to rant about this on Twitter, but bleh. Quick blog post is easier: The Sad State of Modern Sci-fi

Short summary: They do not make amazing scifi movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey any more. CGI is ruining everything. There hasn’t been a good (in this case defined as thoughtful and intelligent) scifi movie since Moon in 2009.

Mr. Forward: I am extremely sorry to hear that last year, you were held captive in a windowless basement by evil, scifi-hating orcs and thus not allowed to go to the theater and see Her or Gravity (which relied heavily upon cgi). The former, I’ll note, won a richly-deserved Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay. The latter won several Oscars, including taking home Best Director for Alfonso Cuarón. (Now, to be fair, Mr. Forward’s post is from February 14, 2014, so he couldn’t have known this would happen.) I am also saddened to hear your subterranean prison did not have pay-per-view, and thus you were incapable of accessing Europa Report–a movie that was not without its problems, but was still an extremely solid offering for the genre if your requirements are thoughtful and intelligent.

And you’ll note here, I’m just sticking with the hardest scifi I can find. Go into softer scifi and you get Under the Skin. If you want to expand out toward fantasy, I can offer quite a few more movies that definitely deserve to be called thoughtful and intelligent in 2013, including Byzantium and Only Lovers Left Alive.

2013 was an incredible year for genre film, any way you slice it. While most of what I named were smaller, independent films, Gravity had a lifetime domestic gross of ~$274 million, not too far behind 2001: A Space Odyssey‘s inflation adjusted lifetime domestic gross of ~$297 million. Those numbers ain’t anything to sneeze at.

I guess you could dismiss the films I’ve named as not good enough in relation to the examples you hold up. It’s probably true that they’re never going to make another film like 2001: A Space Odyssey, and that’s okay. That film already exists, and has held up through time. Let the filmmakers of today make different films and seek the answers for different questions. If Her and Gravity are insufficient in your eyes, I’d question if you’re defining good scifi cinema as thoughtful explorations of big questions on film, or as thoughtful explorations of big questions on film that precisely  fit your personal taste. At which point you lose my sympathy if your taste is so narrow as all that.