I've heard nothing but bad about "The Electric State" so haven't been even tempted to check it out. Your post makes it pretty clear that's the right decision. In any event, the Russo Brothers are pretty hit-n-miss. Mostly miss.
In movies like this, there need be no logic, or even sense, just a string of visual tropes to create impressions and feels. Stir in some quips and zingers for flavor. Leave intelligence and nuance out of it.
"[T]he brain can do anything" is similar to the trope that a good enough software, or a magic chip, can hack anything the script requires hacked. The real pity is that science fiction used to be (and some written SF still is) much more intelligent and scientifically accurate (e.g. Neal Stephenson, Robert J. Sawyer, Liu Cixin, and others). I owe part of my interest in science to the SF I read in the 1960s and 1970s.
Can't fault anything about the sentiment here, but I will stand up for modern day sci-fi in terms of intelligence and accuracy, if you know where to look. I actually struggle with 'classic' sci-fi.
Partly because I find it difficult to suspend disbelief when predictions and assumptions made by writers in the past have since become laughably inaccurate (e.g. Asimov's advanced robot AI being written on typewriters).
And also because I find that in older stories, scientific accuracy and plot is prioritised, considerably, over people speaking and behaving realistically. Maybe because I'm a neuropsych person, but that always strikes me as just as bad, if not worse, than any misapplied physics, or whatever.
Modern writers I really like who seem to get the balance right include Martha Wells, Adrian Tchaikovsky, and Miciah Johnson (although I've only read 'The Space Between Worlds' of hers, but that was enough to win me over).
I read that old stuff back in the day. I agree it's amusing to read now. Even relatively recent SF didn't predict the cell phone revolution. Many still thought faxing would still be a thing. Even on spaceships. I read a Bruce Sterling novel recently ("Islands in the Net", 1988) that thought telex would be the main means of communication and that video phones were too expensive for real-time use, so people pre-recorded messages and squirted compressed versions to the recipient. The future is hard to predict!
The thing about a lot of SF is that it's about the ideas presented, and dialog and human interactions often do take a back seat. Great for idea people and techies, less so for lovers of literary fiction.
And, yeah, as I said, some written SF is very good. Octavia E. Butler was a good blend of ideas and writing. Her two-book series "Parable of the Sower" (1993) and "Parable of the Talents" (1998) is almost eerie in how it anticipates P45&47. A near spitting image.
I've heard nothing but bad about "The Electric State" so haven't been even tempted to check it out. Your post makes it pretty clear that's the right decision. In any event, the Russo Brothers are pretty hit-n-miss. Mostly miss.
In movies like this, there need be no logic, or even sense, just a string of visual tropes to create impressions and feels. Stir in some quips and zingers for flavor. Leave intelligence and nuance out of it.
"[T]he brain can do anything" is similar to the trope that a good enough software, or a magic chip, can hack anything the script requires hacked. The real pity is that science fiction used to be (and some written SF still is) much more intelligent and scientifically accurate (e.g. Neal Stephenson, Robert J. Sawyer, Liu Cixin, and others). I owe part of my interest in science to the SF I read in the 1960s and 1970s.
Can't fault anything about the sentiment here, but I will stand up for modern day sci-fi in terms of intelligence and accuracy, if you know where to look. I actually struggle with 'classic' sci-fi.
Partly because I find it difficult to suspend disbelief when predictions and assumptions made by writers in the past have since become laughably inaccurate (e.g. Asimov's advanced robot AI being written on typewriters).
And also because I find that in older stories, scientific accuracy and plot is prioritised, considerably, over people speaking and behaving realistically. Maybe because I'm a neuropsych person, but that always strikes me as just as bad, if not worse, than any misapplied physics, or whatever.
Modern writers I really like who seem to get the balance right include Martha Wells, Adrian Tchaikovsky, and Miciah Johnson (although I've only read 'The Space Between Worlds' of hers, but that was enough to win me over).
I read that old stuff back in the day. I agree it's amusing to read now. Even relatively recent SF didn't predict the cell phone revolution. Many still thought faxing would still be a thing. Even on spaceships. I read a Bruce Sterling novel recently ("Islands in the Net", 1988) that thought telex would be the main means of communication and that video phones were too expensive for real-time use, so people pre-recorded messages and squirted compressed versions to the recipient. The future is hard to predict!
The thing about a lot of SF is that it's about the ideas presented, and dialog and human interactions often do take a back seat. Great for idea people and techies, less so for lovers of literary fiction.
And, yeah, as I said, some written SF is very good. Octavia E. Butler was a good blend of ideas and writing. Her two-book series "Parable of the Sower" (1993) and "Parable of the Talents" (1998) is almost eerie in how it anticipates P45&47. A near spitting image.