Your favorite Sci-fi movies?

[psikeyhackr]

Event Horizon was about a "crazy scientist" that opens a doorway to "hell". Again it portrays science as dangerous and scientists as the enemy. (I guess aliens did this a little but it was more "blame the corporations" instead)

Yeah, Event Horizon was pretty bad. Horror pseudo-sci-fi.

psik

 

[socrates17]

Welcome to the forums, socrates.

But.... Richard III as Science Fiction??? Really? It's a good film, but calling it Sci-Fi is more than a stretch in my opinion...

Anyway, I'd like to add a couple recent ones from this summer to my own favourites: Moon and District 9.

Thanks for the welcome! Richard Loncraine's Richard III with Ian McKellen feels like Alternate History to me with the UK as a fascist state in the 1920s. Besides, it brought the film up in discussion and you and I can recommend it from either perspective to other participants.

Completely agree on District 9 and, alas, did not see Moon.

 

[Ropie]

13 The Quiet Earth

What a great film! I suspect most people here won't have seen it but it is well worth seeking out. It's very vaguely a cross between Day of the Triffids and Ubik, without the plants or any talking appliances. It has also perhaps the best ending of any SF movie.

 

[The Docker]

Moon is an excellent film.
A clever short story, turned into a very good film.

My top ten would be something like this:

1. Star Wars (not the trilogy)
2. 12 Monkeys
3. Brazil
4. Close Encounters
5. 2001
6. Wrath of Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!
7. The Abyss
8. Blade Runner
9. ET
10. Moon

Mentions go to the likes of Logan's Run and West World for kick starting my interest in Sci Fi.

 

[socrates17]

I'm curious about this. When was the first time anyone asked whether Deckard was a replicant?

I may be wrong* but I don't remember this idea being in the book (apart from PKD's normal "How real are any of us?" phobias) and I don't remember the idea being tossed about at the time of the movie's release.
*I usually am

I believe that in this case you are correct. I read Androids years before Blade Runner was filmed and I never got the idea that Deckard was an android. Reading a lot of PKD one always had to look out for non-Humans/Androids because they could pop up anywhere regardless of their plot-provenance. Pat Conley, Palmer Eldritch, The Simulacra - you always had to keep your eyes open.

Also, you're completely correct about Bab5. I forgot to include my rule about no TV series, otherwise Bab5 and The Prisoner would have been on my list.

 

[socrates17]

Re: The Quiet Earth

What a great film! I suspect most people here won't have seen it but it is well worth seeking out. It's very vaguely a cross between Day of the Triffids and Ubik, without the plants or any talking appliances. It has also perhaps the best ending of any SF movie.

There are at least 3 of us. Owlcroft listed it without a "(?)" following the title which would have meant code for NOT having seen the film. You could have a point about this having the best ending of any SF film, were it not for my nasty sense of humour and the end of A Boy and His Dog.

 

[JunkMonkey]

There are at least 3 of us.

Four! It was second on my list - not that they were in any special order. Great film.

To return to the "Why does everyone rank Bladerunner so highly?" theme for a moment - and then ignoring it by asking "Why does everyone rank Star Wars so highly?"

I was the target audience for Star Wars when it first came out. I was 16 and I was blown away. It was one of the most amazing cinematic experiences I'd had up till then. But then I hadn't seen Solyaris, I was still a virgin and I was still reading Heinlein without noticing how deeply hokey the man's politics were. I was, in short, an immature little twerp. [FastForward 35 years] Lots of sex, drugs, rock and roll, and more sex later - I'm still a twerp but I'm a better read, and cinematically more literate twerp - and I have seen Solyaris. I have also seen Star Wars several times. Each time I watched it I found there was less and less in it and I have finally come to the conclusion that Star Wars just isn't a very good film. It hasn't stood the test of time. Blade Runner does stand the test of time - the more often I see Blade Runner the more I find in it. It is a much better film.

I suspect Star Wars features in so many people's lists because of nostalgia. It was the first of the blockbuster SF movies of the 70s and became the template for SF movies for the next decade. As SF it's crap. (I'm not going to get into the 'It's not really SF because..." debate. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck; it's a duck. Star Wars is an SF movie. Live with it.) The characters are cardboard to annoying (come on, admit it C3PO is one of the SF screen's most irritating inhabitants) and the plot is hardly complex or ambiguous - it's not really open to multiple readings.

What it does have is an unassailable place in history. But then again so does Georges Méliès and no one but the most self-concious cinéaste would list his technically innovative 1902 film Le Voyage dans la Lune (the first SF film ever made) as one of the 'Greatest'.

 

[nquixote]

Why is Star Wars crap as SF?

 

[The Docker]

Star Wars is Star Wars for me, if that makes sense.
There are holes in the plot and parts that need to be changed for both script and continuity purposes but it is still the first "proper" scif fi I ever saw and was involved with.
We maybe talking a generation thing, here but to me it visualised a genre I had only previously imagined.

 

[JunkMonkey]

Star Wars is Star Wars for me, if that makes sense.
There are holes in the plot and parts that need to be changed for both script and continuity purposes but it is still the first "proper" scif fi I ever saw and was involved with.
We maybe talking a generation thing, here but to me it visualised a genre I had only previously imagined.

That's what I mean: it's famous for being famous. 'Generational thing'? I'm 50. I saw it in the cinema when it first came out. And yes, for me too it it put up on the screen the movie that had been playing inside my head when I read SF books and stories in a way that was utterly amazing. But fond remembrance and rose-tinted glasses do not make a movie great.


As for it being 'crap SF'. For me SF takes an idea (or if you are lucky - ideas) and plays with them. The "What if..." game. Star Wars does nothing "What iffy" at all. Uses a lot of SF set dressing but doesn't get below the surface of any of the assumptions and suppositions it makes. Launches into the middle of a breathy action adventure story and keeps on going till it gets to the end. It's a WW2 adventure story in spaceships.

 

[nquixote]

As for it being 'crap SF'. For me SF takes an idea (or if you are lucky - ideas) and plays with them. The "What if..." game. Star Wars does nothing "What iffy" at all. Uses a lot of SF set dressing but doesn't get below the surface of any of the assumptions and suppositions it makes. Launches into the middle of a breathy action adventure story and keeps on going till it gets to the end. It's a WW2 adventure story in spaceships.

So "crap SF" focuses on the characters and story rather than extrapolation of hypothetical science ideas...?

I don't know, I think movies like Star Wars get young people a lot more interested in science and technology - because they visualize and imagine what a cool world technology could bring about - than do movies like Blade Runner.

Also, film is generally an inferior medium with which to explore the implications of science ideas. There are exceptions (Primer). But did Terminator or Matrix or Aliens ever explore the idea of man-machine conflict, or virtual universes, or first contact as thoroughly as books like I, Robot, Otherland, or The Mote in God's Eye? Of course not. Nor was Blade Runner nearly as good at extrapolation regarding AI self-awareness as was the book on which it was based.

What film is good for is creating a world and immersing you in it; that's why so many people say they like Blade Runner for the visuals (as opposed to the ideas). On that score, it didn't work for me. And Star Wars did (as did Terminator, Matrix, and Aliens).

 

[JunkMonkey]

So "crap SF" focuses on the characters and story rather than extrapolation of hypothetical science ideas...?

Pretty much so. (Though the ideas played with don't have to be just hard science ideas) You can have a good compelling story with well drawn interesting characters running around in it in any genre. Transpose Star Wars to medieval Japan (obviously you'd have to change the costumes a bit) and you loose nothing. You still have an action adventure story. Move Gattaca to medieval Japan and you have nothing. Gattaca may have less story and thinner characters but it's better SF. I just said Star wars was "crap SF" not "crap".

I don't know, I think movies like Star Wars get young people a lot more interested in science and technology - because they visualize and imagine what a cool world technology could bring about - than do movies like Blade Runner.

I think I'd much prefer live in Blade Runner world than Star Wars world. People look like they could have fun in Blade Runner world - or at least sex. The choice between living in a grungy polluted media blitz of a future (where it rains a lot) or being a sterile cog in the machinations of huge humourless mass-murdering power blocks of the Star Wars universe. No contest.

Also, film is generally an inferior medium with which to explore the implications of science ideas. There are exceptions (Primer). But did Terminator or Matrix or Aliens ever explore the idea of man-machine conflict, or virtual universes, or first contact as thoroughly as books like I, Robot, Otherland, or The Mote in God's Eye? Of course not. Nor was Blade Runner nearly as good at extrapolation regarding AI self-awareness as was the book on which it was based.

What film is good for is creating a world and immersing you in it; that's why so many people say they like Blade Runner for the visuals (as opposed to the ideas). On that score, it didn't work for me. And Star Wars did (as did Terminator, Matrix, and Aliens).

I think we are going to differ markedly. Though I agree with you that film is an inferior medium with which to explore the implications of science ideas. God on explosions not so good on the physics behind them. I thought The Matrix was crap SF too. It might have got better but I stopped watching the first one after listening to some implausible guff about human beings being farmed to generate heat.

 

[nquixote]

I think we are going to differ markedly. Though I agree with you that film is an inferior medium with which to explore the implications of science ideas. God on explosions not so good on the physics behind them. I thought The Matrix was crap SF too. It might have got better but I stopped watching the first one after listening to some implausible guff about human beings being farmed to generate heat.

Well, just to play devil's advocate here...Consider the science in Blade Runner. You have weak androids (Deckard) being hired to kill off strong androids. Does that make sense? Does it make sense to detect androids via some kind of elaborate Turing test instead of, say, a blood test?

 

[Bond]

First saw Star Wars on television with lots of commercials. Didn't understand what made it such a big draw. Saw it later on cable with no interruptions. My verdict changes to great movie. Many many iconic moments. The attack sequence on the first Death Star is nonpareil. I love how it goes from being a big battle and then continuously focuses and refocuses into an increasingly personal and intimate conflict. A better example of that escapes me at the moment.

Conventional wisdom is that of the original trilogy The Empire Strikes Back is the best. I've always found it to be the weakest of the three. I suspect it's because I choose to look past the relative gravitas each film brings. It's what I dislike in many of the acclaimed science fiction films and art films in general. I see superficial gravitas being passed off as intellectual or inspiring. Blade Runner for me is an example of this. Compare it with Total Recall another Philip K. Dick based movie. Are the quality of ideas really better in Blade Runner than Total Recall? Blade Runner is more solemn and moody but Total Recall is a lot more fun. Blade Runner is therefore categorized as cerebral and Total Recall a summer box office blockbuster. It's marketing. It seems to me Blade Runner is commonly held in higher regard because its tone fits in better with the ethos of science fiction that takes itself seriously. It's as much about style and the image projected as actual content. Aside from the Arnuldisms and the female wrestling Total Recall is a minefield of science fiction ideas told in a novel way. Blade Runner seems drab in comparison. The Fifth Element struggles to be even a silly copy.

 

[Evil Agent]

Gotta disagree, Empire Strikes Back is just soooooo much better than any of the other Star Wars films.

The look, the feel, the settings (Hoth, Dagobah, Cloud City), the training with Yoda, the climactic duel between Darth and Luke. It's soooo good! And no annoying ewoks or gungans to ruin it.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I see superficial gravitas being passed off as intellectual or inspiring.

Gravitas (from Latin) is a quality of substance or depth of personality.

Gravitas (specifically dignity, seriousness, and duty) is one of the several virtues that ancient Roman society expected men to possess, along with pietas, dignitas, and iustitia.

Isn't "superficial gravitas" a contradiction in terms? How can it be gravitas and superficial?

I go along with Empire Strikes Back as the best. But that flight into the asteroid with the giant worm where they walk out of the ship without space suits is rubbish.

psik

 

[Bond]

Isn't "superficial gravitas" a contradiction in terms? How can it be gravitas and superficial?

grav⋅i⋅tas
 
–noun
seriousness or sobriety, as of conduct or speech.

1. Substance; weightiness: a frivolous biography that lacks the gravitas of its subject.

2. A serious or dignified demeanor: "Our national father figure needs gravitas, [but] he's pitched himself as the kid brother" (John Leo).


I don't see the contradiction or difficulty in grasping the concept.

 

[nquixote]

I see superficial gravitas being passed off as intellectual or inspiring. Blade Runner for me is an example of this. Compare it with Total Recall another Philip K. Dick based movie. Are the quality of ideas really better in Blade Runner than Total Recall? Blade Runner is more solemn and moody but Total Recall is a lot more fun. Blade Runner is therefore categorized as cerebral and Total Recall a summer box office blockbuster. It's marketing. It seems to me Blade Runner is commonly held in higher regard because its tone fits in better with the ethos of science fiction that takes itself seriously. It's as much about style and the image projected as actual content.

I agree completely. It's the "neon noir" that makes people love Blade Runner, not the ideas in the movie.

Although I must say that Empire Strikes Back is Teh Awesome for reasons that have nothing to do with the supposedly "dark" tone...the love story is the best of the 3, the Jedi training scenes are unforgettable, the Hoth land battle is extremely cool, and the "I am your father" scene is the most quoted scene ever...

 

[nquixote]

Gotta disagree, Empire Strikes Back is just soooooo much better than any of the other Star Wars films.

The look, the feel, the settings (Hoth, Dagobah, Cloud City), the training with Yoda, the climactic duel between Darth and Luke. It's soooo good! And no annoying ewoks or gungans to ruin it.

I love Empire Strikes Back, but I gotta disagree with you about the annoyingness of the Ewoks. I like them. Even as a kid, I quickly saw them as what George Lucas actually intended them to be - a metaphor for the Viet Cong (yes, my hippie parents did prime me somewhat to take this view)...they look cute and small, but they're actually proud warriors defending their meager homes with cunning and bravery.

 

[JunkMonkey]

I love Empire Strikes Back, but I gotta disagree with you about the annoyingness of the Ewoks. I like them. Even as a kid, I quickly saw them as what George Lucas actually intended them to be - a metaphor for the Viet Cong (yes, my hippie parents did prime me somewhat to take this view)...they look cute and small, but they're actually proud warriors defending their meager homes with cunning and bravery.

I had never thought of the Ewoks as being a metaphor for anything before, let alone the Viet Cong. I think you just made the Star Wars movies even shallower than I thought they were. Is this really what Lucas had in mind? The reason I never even thought about the Ewoks as anything other than midgets in teddy bear suits was that I was too busy cringing with embarrassment as the most deadly and frightening fighting force in the galaxy were smeared all over the landscape by dwarfs throwing a couple of logs at them. Millions of Stormtrooper who couldn't shoot a big fish in a small barrel I can just about buy - it's SOP that the baddies can't shoot for toffee - and I can reluctantly buy the fact that they are all too stupid to do simple things like shoot UNDER a half open door - as in the swinging across the chasm bit in the first movie - but the having them stomp about in armoured vehicles that seem to be made of thin cardboard was too much. I mean really scary bad guys these. Not only do they creamed by stone age 'primitives' - they were so toothless that their defence contractors could palm off any old shoddy crap on them. Anyone could have taken them down. My granny could have done it no question.