"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
4c17a43c$1@news.povray.org...
> Gilles Tran wrote:
>> The problem with that definition is that is probably excludes most of 
>> what has been produced, sold and accepted by the public under that name,
>
> Sadly true.

Really I don't feel that sad at all. As a literary genre, what makes SF 
special is that it does not have the formal constraints of other genres when 
it comes to describe a particular universe, though it can freely borrow 
tropes from other genres. At its best, it's a playground for ideas and 
concepts that cannot be expressed in other normal settings. For instance, 
Dick's SF is mostly about what defines reality and our perception of it. 
People use spaceships in his novels but that's ancillary: SF was just the 
best vessel for what he had to tell. Ditto for Bradbury (who doesn't like to 
be called a science fiction writer) and a whole lot of major SF authors. 
Science are just one of the topics that SF can talk about. Most SF is using 
handwavium and unobtainium because it's usually about something else, and 
more than often that something is related to the issues of the time.

>> "A clockwork orange" is one of the most powerful and influential SF movie 
>> ever, except that there's 0 science in it.
> I've never heard that called science fiction.  Is 1984 also considered to 
> be science fiction?

It's right there in Wikipedia in any case, filed both under "social SF" or 
"dystopian  SF". Of course everybody knew in 1948 that 1984 was all about 
communism and fascism so it's better known as a political work.

> In the book there is, certainly. You can't tell the story of 2001 without 
> aliens setting up a monolith.

True, but lots of the sci-fi thingies described in the novel, like the alien 
Grand Central Station and the atomic bomb at the end, were left out of the 
movie for a good reason: this made the movie more puzzling, ambiguous and 
intellectually stimulating than the novel ever was.

G.

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> writes:

> "Neeum Zawan" <fee### [at] festercom> wrote in message
> news:87w### [at] festercom...
>> "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> writes:
>
>> > Are you suggesting that a company supplying clean, practically limitless
>> > energy to the whole world cannot afford a couple of manned moon launches
> per
>> > year? I did not realize the energy business was so hard to make a buck
> in.
>> > Maybe we should start a donation fund to help our poor oil companies...
>
>> Who said they can't afford it?
>
> If it's not a monetary decision, what then?

I didn't say I knew. Nor do I see the relevance. It's not really a major
aspect of the plot. 

Sure, if you make unneeded assumptions, the movie will indeed seem
stupid.

>> Well, let's see. You start off a thread complaining about a science
>> fiction movie, and then you insist on rules that follow a subset of
>> today's businesses.
>>
>> Who's being uncreative here?
>
> Today's business rules, human and corporate behaviour evolved for a reason.

Yes, because business rules the world over are uniform, right?

> They will surely keep evolving. However, fundamentals don't change.
> Operating with utmost safety in mission critical applications is not ever
> going to go out of fashion. Sci-fi is not to be a genre where anything goes,

Eh? It's rarely been /in/ fashion. Both in recent history and long term
history. People have been disposable in the past. I fail to see any
fundamental reason for that not happening again.

>> >> Why assume that it is unethical?
>
>> > Because to assume otherwise (ie. clones engineered to die after 3 years
> is
>> > perfectly acceptable) goes against everything we know and believe. Plus,
> to
>
>> "We"?
>
> Yes. I posit that 99.9% of surveyed would say that that's not ethical, and
> that warrants the generalization of "we".

I'm sure 99.9% of people surveyed will say lots of things are
unethical. Yet, when the opportunity arises, that number drops. Or
rather, they claim an exception. 

Torture, any one?

After all, are clones really people? 

>> > assume otherwise invalidates the point of the movie: If it's perfectly
>> > acceptable to do that, the movie becomes pointless and devoid of
> conflict
>> > for the audience.
>
>> So, there's little that goes on that is "unacceptable" in our world?
>
> No. But I'm pretty certain that, say, MS does not kill off its programmers
> who are past their prime productivity to avoid costs. In fact, give me one

1. MS not doing so is fairly irrelevant.

2. Killing the clones may in fact be quite humane, given that they're in
poor health at that point. 

> example of a company that actually did that at any point. If it's not

Lots of enterprises in history have cut off people when they're no
longer useful. Perhaps you should read up on Spanish history.

>> > If anything, the clones would function better if "HAL"
>> > stuck to the official company line. Also, it can be argued that even an
>
>> I take it you're an expert on clones?
>
> At least as much as the makers of that movie.

Let's see. You're positing a theory on what's good for clones. They are
not. Your theory is inconsistent with how the clones behave. Who shall I
ignore?

>> > Asimovian robot would lie in that situation to maximize the happiness of
> the
>> > poor soul before his inevitable death.
>
>> I don't recall: Did they say anywhere in the movie that it has to follow
>> the three laws of robotics?
>
> You were the one who suggested clones might function better with such caring
> robots.

Yes. I fail to see what's so Asimovian about my statement.

>> > Huh?
>
>> Your assumption that they were trying to rip off much from other
>> movies.
>
> It's an observation, and a very trivial one. I know you like being contrary,
> but surely even you are not going to argue that the robot (among many other
> things) is not a direct rip off from 2001? And I am sure opening the scene
> with an astronaut on a threadmill was also a coincidence.... etc

Frankly, I'm beginning to doubt that you've read much SF.

>> Yes, and it takes a wise person to know when not to analyze if there
>> isn't sufficient information.
>
> It's a movie. It's self contained. And it's sufficient information. If I'm

Movies are self contained? 

I'm beginning to understand why we're not seeing eye to eye. You view a
movie as a fundamentally different concept than I. The same is also true
for your views on SF, and perhaps stories in general.

>> > I am not under obligation to *imagine* that he has additional, more
>> > important jobs. If the moviemakers wanted me to believe that, they would
>> > have to have *shown* me. Since they did not, it's their failing either
> way,
>
>> If the moviemakers had deemed your knowing that as relevant, yes.
>
> Exactly. We can conclude that the director though out guy doesn't do
> anything else relevant. We see him sleeping, working out (several times),
> building models (several scenes), banging an alarm clock (couple of
> different times)... etc. Obviously, it's not as if the director ran out of
> celluloid before he could show us the really "important" jobs he does on the
> base. We thus conclude that he has shown all that is relevant, and he
> doesn't really do anything more demanding than carrying canisters back and
> forth.

Well, not relevant to the *story*. If I made a movie about a company
that mistreats its workers, you're suggesting it's my duty to point out
the details of what the workers actually /do/? 

And I just can't see Earth-like gravity and faster than light
communication as being relevant to the plot of the story. Along with a
lot of your other complaints. Sure, with some of them, one /could/ have
come up with an interesting story, but it would likely be a different
one.

You know, it's OK to simply say you didn't like it. You don't have to
construct a whole theory of story-telling and SF to defend it.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:

>> "A clockwork orange" is one of the most powerful and influential SF
>> movie ever, except that there's 0 science in it. 
>
> I've never heard that called science fiction.  Is 1984 also considered
> to be science fiction?

Yes and yes. Although I hear it less frequently for the latter. The
former's case is not that rare.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Yes and yes. Although I hear it less frequently for the latter. The
> former's case is not that rare.

I guess I just object to taking a movie like ZombieLand or something, and 
turning it into a fantasy by having the character say "Nobody is sure where 
zombies came from, maybe a wizard in China." Or turning it into science 
fiction by having him say "Nobody is sure where zombies came from, maybe an 
escaped science lab."  Yet having them otherwise be exactly the same movie.

-- 
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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:

> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Yes and yes. Although I hear it less frequently for the latter. The
>> former's case is not that rare.
>
> I guess I just object to taking a movie like ZombieLand or something,
> and turning it into a fantasy by having the character say "Nobody is
> sure where zombies came from, maybe a wizard in China." Or turning it
> into science fiction by having him say "Nobody is sure where zombies
> came from, maybe an escaped science lab."  Yet having them otherwise be
> exactly the same movie.

I'm often not too happy at a lot of things labeled SF. But I have to be
honest with myself and say that I like a number of stories that are
considered SF, that I consider to have an SF "feel" about them, but yet
have little to do with science (you know, lots of space stories,
including a lot of Asimov's stuff). 

Although I'm not sure why you'd object to 1984 as SF. It wasn't the
point of the book, but science/technology played a key role.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> I'm often not too happy at a lot of things labeled SF. But I have to be
> honest with myself and say that I like a number of stories that are
> considered SF, that I consider to have an SF "feel" about them, but yet
> have little to do with science (you know, lots of space stories,
> including a lot of Asimov's stuff). 

Sure, me too. I also enjoy a lot of stories about magic.  Or about 
technology that might as well be magic.  Or about stuff that isn't magic or 
technology but might as well be either. (Like "Hopscotch" (apparently not 
the popular one tho) wherein most everyone in the world in their teens 
learns to voluntarily swap bodies with whomever they touch.)

I'd just like to know what I'm buying.

> Although I'm not sure why you'd object to 1984 as SF. It wasn't the
> point of the book, but science/technology played a key role.

As you say, it wasn't the point of the book.

Contrast with, say, some of Niven's stories about Beowulf Schaeffer or some 
such.

-- 
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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:

> I'd just like to know what I'm buying.

Read a review.<G>

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <fee### [at] festercom> wrote in message
news:87z### [at] festercom...
> "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> writes:

> Eh? It's rarely been /in/ fashion. Both in recent history and long term
> history. People have been disposable in the past. I fail to see any
> fundamental reason for that not happening again.

It's one thing to routinely dispose of employees by firing them, it's
another to literally dispose them into the garbage chute. The latter, if you
have noticed, is not all that common.

> I'm sure 99.9% of people surveyed will say lots of things are
> unethical. Yet, when the opportunity arises, that number drops. Or
> rather, they claim an exception.

And it's the moviemakers' responsibility to convince me that that
opportunity (& more importantly, the motive) arose. That the company
operates on the moon instead of on earth is not enough excuse for me to buy
that.

> After all, are clones really people?

The movie was too simpleminded to go into that.

> > It's an observation, and a very trivial one. I know you like being
contrary,
> > but surely even you are not going to argue that the robot (among many
other
> > things) is not a direct rip off from 2001? And I am sure opening the
scene
> > with an astronaut on a threadmill was also a coincidence.... etc

> Frankly, I'm beginning to doubt that you've read much SF.

That has precious little to do anything with the amount of "borrowed"
material in this movie.

> > It's a movie. It's self contained. And it's sufficient information. If
I'm

> Movies are self contained?

Sure (or they should be). There's a definite start, and a definite end to a
movie. You call what goes in between the movie. You can *speculate* on your
free time about what the director *did not* put in a movie, but that is not
part of the movie.

> Well, not relevant to the *story*. If I made a movie about a company
> that mistreats its workers, you're suggesting it's my duty to point out
> the details of what the workers actually /do/?

In that case, no. We *know* that workers are needed for our companies and we
know more or less what workers do in a typical business. I don't know that
humans are needed on the moon moving a caniester from point A to point B,
much less why human *clones* are needed. It's a premise unfamiliar to the
viewer (or to me at least, you may have more firsthand experience with moon
operations), and that is why an explanation is in order. One doesn't need to
explain the mundane, but extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary
evidence. It's where a lot of movies (sci-fi or not) fail, for they take
suspension of disbelief for granted. It's typical Hollywood attitude to
assume that the audience will eat with a spoon whatever is put in front of
them. When you ask an innocent "why" or "how", the whole storyline collapses
like a house of cards. Avatar was like that too. Spectacular technology, but
ultimately hollow inside.

> And I just can't see Earth-like gravity and faster than light
> communication as being relevant to the plot of the story. Along with a
> lot of your other complaints. Sure, with some of them, one /could/ have
> come up with an interesting story, but it would likely be a different
> one.
>
> You know, it's OK to simply say you didn't like it. You don't have to
> construct a whole theory of story-telling and SF to defend it.

No, I don't have to. But isn't it better to back one's viewpoint?

Post a reply to this message

On 6/17/2010 11:38 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  writes:
>
>> I'd just like to know what I'm buying.
>
> Read a review.<G>
>

That's too practical of a suggestion. ;)

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   It all comes down to one's *definition* of "sci-fi". Basically sci-fi
> has a wide scale of "hardness", and where people put the line between
> "real" sci-fi depends on personal opinion.

There are some who distinguish between sci-fi and science fiction.

Science fiction is reserved for those tales in which the author both 
believes that the science in the story is possible, and is also 
technically competent enough to know what is possible and what is not.

The term "sci-fi" refers to all works having the trappings of science 
fiction (the ships, robots, aliens, etc.), but which contradicts what we 
know about the laws of nature at some point.

The third category that winds up on the same cable channel and in the 
same rack at the bookstore is fantasy; that which is clearly impossible, 
according to our understanding of nature, happens in fantasy.  The main 
distinction between fantasy and sci-fi is that in sci-fi, the amazing 
powers are the result of forces that in the tale are understood on a 
scientific basis (i.e., they can show you the math), whereas in fantasy 
the powers are the result of forces that are, for the most part, 
mysterious and not terribly well-understood.

It is my observation that science fiction (or sci-fi) is best adapted 
for tales of a political nature, while fantasy is more adapted to tales 
about good and evil; which is why Star Wars is essentially a fantasy 
tale, and Trek is primarily a political one.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> writes:

>> Eh? It's rarely been /in/ fashion. Both in recent history and long term
>> history. People have been disposable in the past. I fail to see any
>> fundamental reason for that not happening again.
>
> It's one thing to routinely dispose of employees by firing them, it's
> another to literally dispose them into the garbage chute. The latter, if you
> have noticed, is not all that common.

I wasn't talking about firing.

>> I'm sure 99.9% of people surveyed will say lots of things are
>> unethical. Yet, when the opportunity arises, that number drops. Or
>> rather, they claim an exception.
>
> And it's the moviemakers' responsibility to convince me that that
> opportunity (& more importantly, the motive) arose. That the company
> operates on the moon instead of on earth is not enough excuse for me to buy
> that.

Yes, we do have different notions on what a movie/story is.

>> After all, are clones really people?
>
> The movie was too simpleminded to go into that.

Awesome way to defend any point you make, without actually saying
anything.

>> > It's an observation, and a very trivial one. I know you like being
> contrary,
>> > but surely even you are not going to argue that the robot (among many
> other
>> > things) is not a direct rip off from 2001? And I am sure opening the
> scene
>> > with an astronaut on a threadmill was also a coincidence.... etc
>
>> Frankly, I'm beginning to doubt that you've read much SF.
>
> That has precious little to do anything with the amount of "borrowed"
> material in this movie.

Oh, I don't know. Your statement reminds me of a friend who'd accuse any
movie that had a robot and took place in space as being ripped off from
Star Wars.

>> > It's a movie. It's self contained. And it's sufficient information. If
> I'm
>
>> Movies are self contained?
>
> Sure (or they should be). There's a definite start, and a definite end to a
> movie. You call what goes in between the movie. You can *speculate* on your
> free time about what the director *did not* put in a movie, but that is not
> part of the movie.

Yep, we have different views on what a story/movie is. Or rather, how to
enjoy one.

>> Well, not relevant to the *story*. If I made a movie about a company
>> that mistreats its workers, you're suggesting it's my duty to point out
>> the details of what the workers actually /do/?
>
> In that case, no. We *know* that workers are needed for our companies and we
> know more or less what workers do in a typical business. I don't know that
> humans are needed on the moon moving a caniester from point A to point B,
> much less why human *clones* are needed. It's a premise unfamiliar to the
> viewer (or to me at least, you may have more firsthand experience with moon
> operations), and that is why an explanation is in order. One doesn't need to
> explain the mundane, but extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary
> evidence. It's where a lot of movies (sci-fi or not) fail, for they take

Perhaps one of the reasons they didn't go into details is that it would
take a significant amount of time to explain it, yet contribute only a
minuscule amount to the actual story they're trying to convey. 

You must have really disliked Ray Bradbury's stories. And many low
budget movies, for that matter.

>> And I just can't see Earth-like gravity and faster than light
>> communication as being relevant to the plot of the story. Along with a
>> lot of your other complaints. Sure, with some of them, one /could/ have
>> come up with an interesting story, but it would likely be a different
>> one.
>>
>> You know, it's OK to simply say you didn't like it. You don't have to
>> construct a whole theory of story-telling and SF to defend it.
>
> No, I don't have to. But isn't it better to back one's viewpoint?

Since when was constructing a whole theory needed to back one's
viewpoint? There's a difference between saying "I prefer movies that
have X (because ...), and dislike movies that have Y, because they don't
satisfy X", than saying "All movies should conform to X, because ...,
and movies that don't do so are fundamentally weak."

The former is an opinion, and acknowledges that there may be valid
reasons to like Y, even if you don't. The latter assumes absoluteness in
the issue, and is an argument borne from insecurity.

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <fee### [at] festercom> wrote in message
news:87h### [at] festercom...

> > No, I don't have to. But isn't it better to back one's viewpoint?

> Since when was constructing a whole theory needed to back one's
> viewpoint? There's a difference between saying "I prefer movies that
> have X (because ...), and dislike movies that have Y, because they don't
> satisfy X", than saying "All movies should conform to X, because ...,
> and movies that don't do so are fundamentally weak."
>
> The former is an opinion, and acknowledges that there may be valid
> reasons to like Y, even if you don't. The latter assumes absoluteness in
> the issue, and is an argument borne from insecurity.

Surely, you meant to say: "I think the former is an opinion, and in my
opinion,
acknowledges that there may be valid reasons to like Y, even if you don't.
I dislike the latter because it assumes absoluteness in the issue, and is an
argument borne from insecurity."

I don't need to pepper my prose with "I like"s and "I dislike"s and "I
prefer"s
and "I think"s to feel secure. But if that's what you like and prefer, feel
free to
do so.

Post a reply to this message

On 6/13/2010 8:32 AM, somebody wrote:
> The drawers full of clones in the hidden chamber was so ridiculous
> on so many levels that I laughed out loud.

I agree the size of the clone storage area was a bit questionable.

-- 
http://isometricland.com

Post a reply to this message

On 6/14/2010 12:05 PM, Darren New wrote:
> He called his wife and daughter when he found out he was a clone. It
> wasn't the sort of scene that would have the same kind of punch if you
> put a three-second delay into the conversation.
>

Forgot about this part too. I don't think adding a three second delay 
would have hurt the scene. In fact I think it would have added to the 
sense of "distance" (temporally, spiritually, and in this case also 
physically) between the clone's notion of reality and the reality he is 
facing.

-- 
http://isometricland.com

Post a reply to this message

On 6/18/2010 7:56 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
> There are some who distinguish between sci-fi and science fiction.
>
> Science fiction is reserved for those tales in which the author both
> believes that the science in the story is possible, and is also
> technically competent enough to know what is possible and what is not.

I thought the distinction was based on literary/artistic merit alone? 
I.e. not on the quality of the "science".


-- 
http://isometricland.com

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:53:34 -0600, somebody wrote:

> I don't need to pepper my prose with "I like"s and "I dislike"s and "I
> prefer"s
> and "I think"s to feel secure.

I don't think it's a question of one feeling secure; I think it's a 
question of differentiating between facts and opinions.

YMMV, of course.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

SharkD wrote:
> On 6/18/2010 7:56 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
>> There are some who distinguish between sci-fi and science fiction.
>>
>> Science fiction is reserved for those tales in which the author both
>> believes that the science in the story is possible, and is also
>> technically competent enough to know what is possible and what is not.
> 
> I thought the distinction was based on literary/artistic merit alone? 
> I.e. not on the quality of the "science".

That's a bit too open to debate (and certainly more open to debate than 
the fidelity of the science) to be much use in making distinctions.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> 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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   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.

Galaxy Quest! :-)

Total Recall?  (Confusions easy to brush off, as that was the point of the 
movie.)

Alien? (I never really heard any defensible complaints about it.)

>   This makes me wonder what these people are comparing the movies to.

Books?

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.

-- 
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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Alien? (I never really heard any defensible complaints about it.)

  Don't ask me. I'm not the one claiming certain popular sci-fi movies being
bad...

> >   This makes me wonder what these people are comparing the movies to.

> Books?

> 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.

  Well, that assumes that the book itself can be considered good sci-fi
in the first place... :P

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 24/06/2010 8:42 PM, Warp wrote:
>    I'm beginning to think that there are*no*  good sci-fi movies in existence.
>

I’ve thought that for over 40 years. The only SF films that I thought 
were worthwhile are “Forbidden Planet” {because the plot is from 
Shakespeare’s Tempest (in case anyone has missed it, I’m a Shakespeare 
freak)} and “2001” (nostalgia).

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24/06/2010 8:46 PM, Darren New wrote:
>
> Alien? (I never really heard any defensible complaints about it.)

How about I fell asleep before it finished?

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Well, that assumes that the book itself can be considered good sci-fi
> in the first place... :P

Well, sure. Obviously, there are some books that *are* considered good 
sci-fi, at least by a large number of readers. There are even books that I'd 
consider good sci-fi but which I personally didn't enjoy.

But many of the complaints I hear about "hard" science fiction, like 
complaints about Blade Runner for example, are along the lines of "that 
wasn't the same story as the book."  Not that there was anything 
particularly wrong with the story as told, but only that it didn't meet the 
expectations set by the book.

Of course, some complaints are completely valid. Like "why didn't the 
department of pre-corrections turn off the eyeball access granted to the 
fugitive murderer that used to be allowed in?" in Minority Report. A movie 
which, I'll grant, was nothing at all like the book, and indeed completely 
missed the entire point of the actual book story.

Didn't they make a Farenheit 451 movie? Was that any good? Or an Illustrated 
Man movie?

There are huge numbers of "good" science fiction books that could be made 
into decently good movies nowadays. Even some decent sci-fi I've read that 
you could make suspenseful and all that good stuff without a huge budget.

What I want to know is why virtually every monster movie is zombies, 
vampires, or werewolves? With maybe an occasional killer robot or black 
lagoon creature thrown in.  Can't a horror writer come up with a decent 
original monster?

-- 
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

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 21:05:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 24/06/2010 8:46 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>
>> Alien? (I never really heard any defensible complaints about it.)
> 
> How about I fell asleep before it finished?

I thought the second was better than the first, but I think the first 
could be counted as better Sci Fi.

Falling asleep doesn't mean it's bad Sci Fi, though - I fell asleep 
during Amadeus the first time I watched it, but it was still a good 
film. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I thought the second was better than the first, but I think the first 
> could be counted as better Sci Fi.

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.

-- 
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

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

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 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

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

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

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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 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

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> writes:

> Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> 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

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

Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> 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

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:
> 
>> Better character development.  OK, I can see that, sure.
> 
> Somehow, I'm feeling you're saying that in jest.

No, I was actually 100% serious. Unless the point of the movie is character 
development (i.e., the characters develop noticably during the movie) it's 
not something I tend to remember 10 years later about a movie. :-)

> It was, however, a very quotable movie:

That's always good. I think movies (and to some extent books) turn into 
culture in direct proportion to their quotability.

I think Wizard of Oz still wins on that front, tho.

-- 
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

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> (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?)

See, that's exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. You don't see it 
happen, so you complain. (Not the personal "you" there.)

Clearly the alien got into the food stores that were stocked away for a 
multi-year mining mission. It wasn't eating the people, so where else would 
it get food?

I liked how the human shape was explained as the alien taking on some of the 
characteristics of the host, tho.

-- 
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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > (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?)
>
> See, that's exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. You don't see it
> happen, so you complain. (Not the personal "you" there.)

Yeah... sorry :)

Still, I say 'big' gripe, it's not really a big gripe cos I love the first 2
Alien movies!

> I liked how the human shape was explained as the alien taking on some of the
> characteristics of the host, tho.

Yeah, I didn't really get that until the dog-like alien in the 3rd movie. And
*that* alien, at least, did appear to eat people.

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Yeah, I didn't really get that until the dog-like alien in the 3rd movie. And
> *that* alien, at least, did appear to eat people.

Because they weren't dogs, and hence useless for reproduction.

(To be fair, I am not sure I got it in the first movies either. I think some 
out-of-band explanation was offered me.)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that it's best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > Yeah, I didn't really get that until the dog-like alien in the 3rd movie. And
> > *that* alien, at least, did appear to eat people.
>
> Because they weren't dogs, and hence useless for reproduction.
>
> (To be fair, I am not sure I got it in the first movies either. I think some
> out-of-band explanation was offered me.)

Good point though... what was the creature's motivation in the original?
(ignoring the deleted scenes with two cocooned crewmembers!)

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Good point though... what was the creature's motivation in the original?
> (ignoring the deleted scenes with two cocooned crewmembers!)

Well, I wasn't ignoring that. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that it's best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

On 6/24/2010 4:46 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I thought the second was better than the first, but I think the first
>> could be counted as better Sci Fi.
>
> 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 comic relief was a point against it.


I felt the (fourth?) movie with Wynona Ryder was low quality the first 
time I saw it. I thought the characters were caricatures straight out of 
comic books. But I watched it again recently and sort of liked it.


-- 
http://isometricland.com

Post a reply to this message

On 6/24/2010 4:48 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> 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.

Don't forget Farscape!


-- 
http://isometricland.com

Post a reply to this message

SharkD wrote:
> On 6/24/2010 4:48 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Don't forget Farscape!

I actually have never seen it, although it seems that I should remedy that!

Post a reply to this message

SharkD wrote:
> I felt the (fourth?) movie with Wynona Ryder was low quality the first 
> time I saw it. 

It helps to remember that Weaver always wanted to be a comedian, and that 
the fourth movie was therefore supposed to be funny.

With the most realistic horrible monsters ever invented.

Kind of rough, there...

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that it's best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> writes:

> Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> 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?

If they had such awesome weapons, why the heck didn't they use them?

Too many human qualities were given to them. Or rather, other than
appearance, there didn't seem to be a nonhuman character trait. 

And along with that, why judge the human's treatment of the aliens in
the same way we would judge treating other humans? The aliens aren't
humans, and human rights need not apply. It wasn't established till
quite late in the movie that perhaps they should (this may be
intentional, though).

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 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.

I don't know what it is about that movie, but I can not stay awake long
enough to see it from start to finish. About 30 minutes is all I can
watch before dozing off.

Post a reply to this message

On 24/06/2010 9:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 21:05:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 24/06/2010 8:46 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>>
>>> Alien? (I never really heard any defensible complaints about it.)
>>
>> How about I fell asleep before it finished?
>
> I thought the second was better than the first, but I think the first
> could be counted as better Sci Fi.
>

I really just don’t like the media. There is nothing better for filling 
in the background than your imagination. Bookz Rulz! :-)

> Falling asleep doesn't mean it's bad Sci Fi, though - I fell asleep
> during Amadeus the first time I watched it, but it was still a good
> film. :-)
>

I have this affliction that when the lights go down, my eyes close. Just 
like putting a cover over a bird cage. O_o

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> wrote:
> If they had such awesome weapons, why the heck didn't they use them?

That's a good question, but it's such a biggie that i felt it was a deliberate
attempt to preserve some mystery rather than an actual plot hole. Just like we
never really find out why the aliens are found all cowering in a cargo hold, or
why the ship turned up in the first place. There are obviously good reasons for
these, but the human characters never find out what they are. I like that as a
plot device, it leaves something for your imagination to chew on :)

> Too many human qualities were given to them. Or rather, other than
> appearance, there didn't seem to be a nonhuman character trait.
>
> And along with that, why judge the human's treatment of the aliens in
> the same way we would judge treating other humans?

I read somewhere that they deliberately made the aliens less 'alien' than they
could have, purely to ensure that the audience could empathize with the main
alien character.

Post a reply to this message

On 6/25/2010 8:19 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> Don't forget Farscape!
>
> I actually have never seen it, although it seems that I should remedy that!

It's a serial, so you have to start at the beginning or a lot won't make 
sense. But it's well worth it!


-- 
http://isometricland.com

Post a reply to this message