![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Kevin Wampler
Subject: Re: I unofficially declare sci-fi movie genre officially dead
Date: 24 Jun 2010 16:48:33
Message: <4c23c4a1$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
somebody wrote:
> I just watched Moon. 80% on IMDB, 89% on RottenTomatoes. People compare it
> to 2001 and Solaris. Those people should be shot.
While the comparison to 2001 and Solyaris is clearly insane, I did
rather like Moon, but I tend to not be bothered by inconsistencies in a
movie. I also think that there have been some pretty good sci-fi films
recently. Although not on par with, say, the mid-80s, it seems like
there are about as many "good" sci-fi films as is average. For
instance, in the past 5-6 years I've greatly enjoyed all of the films:
Children of Men
District 9
The Fountain
Primer
WALL-E
Also, even though they're not movies, I think there's been some very
good science fiction television shows recently. Firefly and the remake
of Battlestar Galatica come to mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Gilles Tran
Subject: Re: I unofficially declare sci-fi movie genre officially dead
Date: 24 Jun 2010 17:07:48
Message: <4c23c924$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rr com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
discussion : 4c23b627$1@news.povray.org...
> I'm trying to think of a (hard-ish) sci-fi movie that was as good an
> adaption of the book as (say) Harry Potter was.
A boy and his dog? Harlan Ellison himself was rather pleased with the
adaptation, and the guy isn't exactly easy to please.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: I unofficially declare sci-fi movie genre officially dead
Date: 24 Jun 2010 17:12:07
Message: <4c23ca27@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> Every time a sci-fi movie comes out, somebody will complain and point
> out how ludicrous some detail about it is,
Well, actually, thinking on this, I think part of it is that sci-fi has a
relatively unique place in art.
For example, if there's some ludicrous event in a romantic comedy, like the
same couple running into each other in the airport every time they go on a
trip, that's just "part of the story." Sure, it's ludicrously unlikely, but
that's part of the story. In a magic story, if the sorcerer can't get five
fireballs off in a row and there's no explanation for why he's limited to
four, people just accept that. But if someone has a blaster and it only
shoots four times and then needs to be dipped in water, people will say
"that's stupid - why would anyone build a gun that only fires four times?"
People make fun of westerns where the cowboys fire dozens of times from one
revolver without reloading, but it doesn't really spoil the movie, because
the focus of a western isn't the wonders of the gunplay per se. (At least,
not usually.)
But I think in a SF movie, people are going to examine every tiny aspect of
the science and find something that they'd let pass in any other genre.
Nobody complains that Clouseau outrageous accent, so strong that *nobody* he
lives near can understand him, wouldn't disappear and normalize in a few
weeks. But everybody complains when aliens speak english, and then complain
more when they have an accent (or don't use contractions, or don't
understand slang, or whatever).
Another place this nit-picking happens is mysteries, especially murder
mysteries. You wouldn't accept a murder mystery where the murderer set up
some long convoluted rube goldberg series of events to kill someone, unless
the point of the mystery is how awesomely intelligent the murderer is.
The whole point of Ocean's Eleven (at least, the new version) was how
awesome everyone was to be able to pull off something like that, not that it
was a normal and expected heist. So the fact that the victims responded in
exactly the predicted way needed to make it all come together doesn't ruin
the film.
You don't give the potential murderer an alibi, but then in the last chapter
point out how, while he was at the restaurant with friends all evening, he
was actually in the restroom at the restaurant for over an hour and nobody
noticed. (Unless it's a French murder mystery, I guess.)
Most genres people will go with the flow for the sake of the story. Nobody
really cares if a slapstick comedy's participants would really be seriously
injured by falling off a roof. Nobody cares if a ghost in a ghost movie can
sometimes move things and sometimes can't.
A handful of genres (like, comic book remakes) will expect the movie to
match the book closely, because that's how the fans are. (Cue complaints of
movie-Spiderman not needing technological web shooters.)
Another handful of genres (SF, mystery, to name the two I can think of
offhand) tell stories where the accuracy and believability of every detail
is important to the enjoyment of the story itself. It's a matter of "how
clever was the author" and not just "tell me an entertaining story."
So maybe that's what I'm actually interested in in my more intellectual
reading: something clever and detailed, beyond just the flow of the story.
Not necessarily technology, but something that falls apart if the author has
to ham-hand the story to make it turn out.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: I unofficially declare sci-fi movie genre officially dead
Date: 24 Jun 2010 18:02:29
Message: <4c23d5f5@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:46:50 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> I don't know why people really thought that. There are few movies where
> the sequel is as good as the original, and I'll grant Aliens held its
> own. But I didn't like it as much as Alien. Perhaps it was just because
> I was at the right age for Alien and too cynical by the time Aliens came
> out or something.
For my wife particularly it was Ripley's maternal instincts with regards
to Newt - they resonated really well with her - as in "mommy's going to
protect you at all costs".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: I unofficially declare sci-fi movie genre officially dead
Date: 24 Jun 2010 18:52:21
Message: <4c23e1a5$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Jim Henderson wrote:
> For my wife particularly it was Ripley's maternal instincts with regards
> to Newt - they resonated really well with her - as in "mommy's going to
> protect you at all costs".
Better character development. OK, I can see that, sure.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: I unofficially declare sci-fi movie genre officially dead
Date: 25 Jun 2010 00:15:23
Message: <87vd97zr0a.fsf@fester.com>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> writes:
> Better character development. OK, I can see that, sure.
Somehow, I'm feeling you're saying that in jest.
It was, however, a very quotable movie:
Hudson: Hey, maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events, but we
just got our asses kicked, pal!
++++
Hudson: Let's just bug out and call it even, OK? What are we talking about this for?
Ripley: I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be
sure.
Hudson: Fuckin' A...
Burke: Ho-ho-hold on, hold on one second. This installation has a substantial dollar
value attached to it.
Ripley: They can *bill* me.
+++
Hudson: That's it man, game over man, game over! What the fuck are we gonna do now?
What are we gonna do?
Burke: Maybe we could build a fire, sing a couple of songs, huh? Why
don't we try that?
+++
Ripley: How long after we're declared overdue can we expect a rescue?
Hicks: [pause] Seventeen days.
Hudson: Seventeen *days?* Hey man, I don't wanna rain on your parade, but we're not
gonna last seventeen *hours!* Those things are gonna come in here just like they did
before. And they're gonna come in here...
Ripley: Hudson!
Hudson: ...and they're gonna come in here AND THEY'RE GONNA GET US!
Ripley: Hudson! This little girl survived longer than that with no weapons and no
training.
[to Newt]
Ripley: Right?
[Newt apes a salute]
Hudson: What, you put her in charge?
+++
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: I unofficially declare sci-fi movie genre officially dead
Date: 25 Jun 2010 00:15:27
Message: <87tyorzr06.fsf@fester.com>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> writes:
> I don't know why people really thought that. There are few movies where
> the sequel is as good as the original, and I'll grant Aliens held its
> own. But I didn't like it as much as Alien. Perhaps it was just because
> I was at the right age for Alien and too cynical by the time Aliens came
> out or something.
The two are really different movies.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: I unofficially declare sci-fi movie genre officially dead
Date: 25 Jun 2010 00:15:29
Message: <87sk4bzr04.fsf@fester.com>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp <war### [at] tag povray org> writes:
> Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] fester com> wrote:
>> And if you want a really poor movie from an SF perspective, go and watch
>> District 9.
>
> I'm beginning to think that there are *no* good sci-fi movies in existence.
>
> Every time a sci-fi movie comes out, somebody will complain and point
> out how ludicrous some detail about it is, hence making it nothing but a
> caricature of "good" sci-fi. I don't think there exists any movie which
> would be considered "good" in this regard.
>
> This makes me wonder what these people are comparing the movies to.
> Nothing, I suppose. Some vapid imaginary concept they have about what
> a "good" sci-fi movie should be like.
I compare to textual SF (i.e. novels and stories).
Don't get me wrong - I really liked District 9. Just had some poor SF
aspects. A lot of my issues with it could have been resolved without
much effort. It just wasn't the director's goal.
If one can call The Man From Earth SF, I'd say that's good SF.
The original Planet Of The Apes movie was probably good SF.
As was The Forbidden Planet.
Of course, I suppose your point is that this is all subjective...
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Kevin Wampler
Subject: Re: I unofficially declare sci-fi movie genre officially dead
Date: 25 Jun 2010 01:11:05
Message: <4c243a69@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> If one can call The Man From Earth SF, I'd say that's good SF.
I've heard this many times, but somehow the movie didn't do it for me.
The last movie which I had a different reaction like this was Waking
Life, and I keep wondering what I'm missing with both of them.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] fester com> wrote:
> Don't get me wrong - I really liked District 9. Just had some poor SF
> aspects. A lot of my issues with it could have been resolved without
> much effort. It just wasn't the director's goal.
I'm sure you mentioned it when the movie was first released, but OOC what were
your main issues with it?
> Of course, I suppose your point is that this is all subjective...
It strikes me that there are are lot of good 'SF' movies that are actually quite
poor (or barely even) SF (eg Empire Strikes Back), and a lot of poor movies
which feature good SF (eg Johnny Mnemonic). And a spectrum in between. Of
course, this is highly subjective ;-)
With regard to the Alien films, I'm surprised nobody thought to mention that
Alien is primarily a horror ('haunted house'-type) film, whereas the sequel is
primarily an action/war film. Of course, both are in an SF setting, and both
feature good and poor SF detail (my biggest SF gripe with the Alien series: what
on earth does the critter eat, to get man-sized in a matter of hours/days?)
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |