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