Originally published in SF Symposium, edited by Jose Sanz. Rio De Janeiro: Instituto Nacional Do Cinema, 1969. It must be realised that the science fiction film is just now entering its period of maturity. This can be seen by the fact that major directors are interested in science fiction, as well as major producers. Finances are a good yardstick: for the first time large financing is being invested in science fiction. If the few excellent films of the past are put to one side for separate consideration, it can be truthfully said that 99% of the science fiction films, up to as recently as two years ago, were juvenile in every way. Monster movies, horror movies, simple adventure movies with a few science fictional props to excuse their being called SF. There is a good reason for his. The public was not ready. There is only a single entertainment public. The same people watch television, go to the cinema, read books and magazines. Taste in one area is a good measure of taste in others. The science fiction magazine market was fringe only, with the best magazine unable to approach 100,000 copy sales, while the others ran far behind. There was no book market at all. Therefore it would have been the height of folly for a producer to shoot other than B-budget films. The entertainment market was just not there. The situation in publishing has since changed radically. The magazines are, if anything, in worse shape than they were some years back. Book sales, however, are booming. All over the world. There is a good reason for this. The age of science is upon us and the impact of science changes us and our world in every way. Now the cinema can produce films for the expanding popular market. The first science fiction films were not labelled as such, films like On The Beach and 1984. But they are science fiction and they did make money. This last must always be a prime consideration. 2001: A Space Odyssey can perhaps be called the first of the new science fiction films, that calls itself by the correct name, identifies with science fiction. And makes money. More will follow. Film producers will profit if they realise two very important things: (A) Science fiction is written by science fiction writers. It is a specialised field. It cannot be written by western writers or detective story or screen writers. (B) Science fiction is not what they think it is. It is not rocketships or monsters. It may contain these elements but they are not essential to it. Science Fiction is a very specific entity. If good films are to be made this definition must be thoroughly understood. Science fiction is about the real world, the world we live in today and the world we live in tomorrow. We live in a world where science affects every aspect of our lives, has changed our lives completely, and will change them even more in the future. Science fiction is about the impact of science upon people. When this is considered in all its manifold aspects, it will easily be seen that there is no absolutely no limit to what can be done with the science fiction film. Science itself is beginning to be concerned about its own nature. Histories of science are being written, the science of science is being established, technology is being investigated by such new regimes as industrial archaeology. That is the past and the present. Even greater attention is being given to the future, with many projects attempting long range planning and forecasting. A new discipline of metatechnology - the study of the best way to utilise science -- is being established at the Illinois Institute of Technology. Science fiction utilises all this material, and is ready for more. The film can profit from the experience of the books already written. There are a wealth of ideas out there waiting to be adapted, and I shall list some of the more obvious and interesting ones that have not been touched with serious intent to date. Time Travel -- into the past as well as into the future -- that can be motivated and moved by the clash of different cultures. Robots. What will robots really be like? What, will their uses be - or their dangers? What will be the social consequences of their adoption? Parallel Worlds. The best way of showing 'What if?' How minor causes can work major changes. Human Ecology. Mankind's changes in his biosphere. Overconsumption, overpopulation, pollution and the possible end results. The Planets. What can happen when we reach the other worlds, when we stay on them and exploit them. Changing Cultural Patterns. What life will be like 20, 30, a hundred years hence. The major changes that will come about. Survival. We have atomic bombs and germ warfare. Can we survive despite the ready dangers? What can be done to curb our aggressive instincts? Mental Growth. Our mind alone separate us from the other animals. Can our thinking processes be improved? In what ways? And if they are changed -- what will be the effects of these changes? Science and Religion. Where is religion going? What effect does science have upon it? Is there room for God in the astronomer's galaxy? © HARRY HARRISON 1969   Sad to say that since this piece was written, science fiction movies -- real science fiction movies -- have not appeared in any great number, and 2001: A Space Odyssey is still counted amongst best of the few. Science fiction cinema has not come anywhere near achieving its unlimited potential. Since 1969, Harry Harrison's views on SF movies haven't changed; he's still highly critical of the standards of screenwriting, his prediction that sf can't be written by screenwriters trained in other genres has been proved true. [PT]