For some weird reasons I'm watching "Halo: The Fall of Reach" right now.

Geez, I don't think I've ever seen a SciFi movie with such and crappy
story -- even for a computer game adaptation. And the visual quality
doesn't help either.

Can someone tell me why I'm continuing to watch this?

Post a reply to this message

On 7/23/2016 6:40 PM, clipka wrote:
> For some weird reasons I'm watching "Halo: The Fall of Reach" right now.
>
> Geez, I don't think I've ever seen a SciFi movie with such and crappy
> story

Then you've not seen many SF Moves. They are all crap. Except for 
Forbidden Planet.

-- even for a computer game adaptation. And the visual quality
> doesn't help either.
>
> Can someone tell me why I'm continuing to watch this?
>

Not Too Bright? (NTB)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 23/07/16 19:17, Stephen wrote:
> On 7/23/2016 6:40 PM, clipka wrote:
>> For some weird reasons I'm watching "Halo: The Fall of Reach" right now.
>>
>> Geez, I don't think I've ever seen a SciFi movie with such and crappy
>> story
> 
> Then you've not seen many SF Moves. They are all crap. Except for
> Forbidden Planet.
> 
Oh, come on! How about (in no particular order):
Blade Runner
2001, A Space Odyssey
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Metropolis
Star Wars
Brazil
The Matrix

John
-- 
It's not about bravery.
It's about doing what I need to do to win

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John <j.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> Oh, come on! ....

I do believe the good Doctor has failed to recognize a common case of
intrabuccal lingua.

Post a reply to this message

Am 23.07.2016 um 20:17 schrieb Stephen:
> On 7/23/2016 6:40 PM, clipka wrote:
>> For some weird reasons I'm watching "Halo: The Fall of Reach" right now.
>>
>> Geez, I don't think I've ever seen a SciFi movie with such and crappy
>> story
> 
> Then you've not seen many SF Moves. They are all crap. Except for
> Forbidden Planet.

I'd disagree. For instance, I'd say "I, Robot" had a quite good story,
thanks to Asimov's legacy. "The day the earth stood still" was also
good, and the story of "Metropolis" was pretty wild, but certainly a
work of genius for its time.

I think what you really want to say is that you simply don't dig Science
Fiction movies.

Besides, note that I used the comparative (well, I /tried/ to use it
anyway). Even among crap there's good solid crap, painfully hard crap,
grossly soft crap -- and amorphous plain bullshit.

> -- even for a computer game adaptation. And the visual quality
>> doesn't help either.
>>
>> Can someone tell me why I'm continuing to watch this?
> 
> Not Too Bright? (NTB)

Nah, I guess it was more the fascination of first encounter -- the first
encounter with a level of crappiness never experienced before.

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.07.2016 um 01:15 schrieb Doctor John:
> On 23/07/16 19:17, Stephen wrote:
>> On 7/23/2016 6:40 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> For some weird reasons I'm watching "Halo: The Fall of Reach" right now.
>>>
>>> Geez, I don't think I've ever seen a SciFi movie with such and crappy
>>> story
>>
>> Then you've not seen many SF Moves. They are all crap. Except for
>> Forbidden Planet.
>>
> Oh, come on! How about (in no particular order):
> Blade Runner
> 2001, A Space Odyssey
> Close Encounters of the Third Kind
> Metropolis
> Star Wars
> Brazil
> The Matrix

I guess we need to differentiate between "crappy movie" and "movie with
crappy story".

I think Stephen is right in that only few Science Fiction movies are
plausible enough in their storytelling to qualify as having a non-crappy
story. But that's an ailment of the entire Science Fiction genre, not
just the movies.

"2001 - A Space Odyssey", for instance, is an outstanding movie
/despite/ its story being rather simple, bordering on weak (except
wherever it touches the mystical, at which point story abruptly gives
way to the unexplained).

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.07.2016 um 04:40 schrieb clipka:

> Besides, note that I used the comparative (well, I /tried/ to use it
> anyway). Even among crap there's good solid crap, painfully hard crap,
> grossly soft crap -- and amorphous plain bullshit.

(I forgot to mention caustic bird poop and complete batshit -- but
that's probably ok, since movies of those types deserve to remain
unmentioned.)

Post a reply to this message

On 7/24/2016 1:15 AM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Doctor John <j.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
>> Oh, come on! ....
>
> I do believe the good Doctor has failed to recognize a common case of
> intrabuccal lingua.
>

That's easy for you to say. ;)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 7/24/2016 4:00 AM, clipka wrote:

>
> I guess we need to differentiate between "crappy movie" and "movie with
> crappy story".
>

I hadn't thought of that. How true.

But the truth is. I just don't like "the movies". I get bored and fight 
to stay awake. A bit like putting a cover over a budgerigar's cage. My 
eyelids go down with the lights.

> I think Stephen is right

I'll put this date in my diary. :)


> in that only few Science Fiction movies are
> plausible enough in their storytelling to qualify as having a non-crappy
> story. But that's an ailment of the entire Science Fiction genre, not
> just the movies.
>

A lot of them are cowboys in space. There is one I saw that could have 
been called. "The ray guns of the magnificent seven." Robert Vaughn was 
in it for continuity. :)

> "2001 - A Space Odyssey", for instance, is an outstanding movie
> /despite/ its story being rather simple, bordering on weak (except
> wherever it touches the mystical, at which point story abruptly gives
> way to the unexplained).
>

Yes, that was good, best in class. It was an art movie a wonderful 
adaptation of a short story.

On 7/24/2016 3:40 AM, clipka wrote:

 >>
 >> Then you've not seen many SF Moves. They are all crap. Except for
 >> Forbidden Planet.
 >
 > I'd disagree. For instance, I'd say "I, Robot" had a quite good story,
 > thanks to Asimov's legacy.

I've not seen it so I could not possibly comment. :)

I've just read a bit of its Wiki page and take your word for it being 
good. It does not refresh my memory of the stories very well.
But they took the idea and ran with it.




 > "The day the earth stood still" was also
 > good, and the story of "Metropolis" was pretty wild, but certainly a
 > work of genius for its time.
 >

Two cinema classics and Science Fiction-y too.

I liked the day of the Triffids. It is a bit dated now but still one to 
put on a list.

 > I think what you really want to say is that you simply don't dig Science
 > Fiction movies.
 >

Yes, they have mostly been a disappointment. My imagination is much 
better than whatever can be put on a screen.

 > Besides, note that I used the comparative (well, I /tried/ to use it
 > anyway). Even among crap there's good solid crap, painfully hard crap,
 > grossly soft crap -- and amorphous plain bullshit.
 >

I see that you are a scatologist of the highest order.


 >>
 >> Not Too Bright? (NTB)
 >
 > Nah, I guess it was more the fascination of first encounter -- the first
 > encounter with a level of crappiness never experienced before.
 >

You get some dreadfully bad moves that are a joy to watch.
If you're medicated. ;)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 7/24/2016 12:15 AM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 23/07/16 19:17, Stephen wrote:
>> On 7/23/2016 6:40 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> For some weird reasons I'm watching "Halo: The Fall of Reach" right now.
>>>
>>> Geez, I don't think I've ever seen a SciFi movie with such and crappy
>>> story
>>
>> Then you've not seen many SF Moves. They are all crap. Except for
>> Forbidden Planet.
>>
> Oh, come on! How about (in no particular order):
> Blade Runner

I preferred the book.

> 2001, A Space Odyssey

I'll admit to liking the second film I saw in CinemaScope.

> Close Encounters of the Third Kind

I watched that at 4 times normal speed one Christmas.

> Metropolis

I have only seen clips. I don't know if the restoration has been 
released to the public.

> Star Wars

Grow up.

> Brazil

I've not seen it.

> The Matrix
The spoon has no egg.
>

I have seen Star Wars. It is one of the films that drive me non linear 
with their orbital mechanics.

I saw the Martian after reading the book, which is normally a mistake. I 
quite enjoyed that.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24-7-2016 8:49, Stephen wrote:
> On 7/24/2016 12:15 AM, Doctor John wrote:
>> On 23/07/16 19:17, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 7/23/2016 6:40 PM, clipka wrote:
>>>> For some weird reasons I'm watching "Halo: The Fall of Reach" right
>>>> now.
>>>>
>>>> Geez, I don't think I've ever seen a SciFi movie with such and crappy
>>>> story
>>>
>>> Then you've not seen many SF Moves. They are all crap. Except for
>>> Forbidden Planet.
>>>
>> Oh, come on! How about (in no particular order):
>> Blade Runner
>
> I preferred the book.

Indeed. Me too. However, the movie is acceptable.

>
>> 2001, A Space Odyssey
>
> I'll admit to liking the second film I saw in CinemaScope.

nah. Pseudo philosophical nonsense ;-)

>
>> Close Encounters of the Third Kind
>
> I watched that at 4 times normal speed one Christmas.

My speed was 12 times I guess.

>
>> Metropolis
>
> I have only seen clips. I don't know if the restoration has been
> released to the public.

I saw an 'original' version when adolescent and recently the 
restoration. I prefer my memory of the first.

>
>> Star Wars
>
> Grow up.

When lazy, quite enjoyable.

>
>> Brazil
>
> I've not seen it.

You should see it. One of the better.

>
>> The Matrix
> The spoon has no egg.

Not much flesh on the bones.

>>
>
> I have seen Star Wars. It is one of the films that drive me non linear
> with their orbital mechanics.
>
> I saw the Martian after reading the book, which is normally a mistake. I
> quite enjoyed that.
>
>

In general, I prefer SF books (not SciFi books by the way). Just now 
busy with the Culture books of Iain M. Banks.


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.07.2016 um 08:35 schrieb Stephen:

>> I'd disagree. For instance, I'd say "I, Robot" had a quite good story,
>> thanks to Asimov's legacy.
> 
> I've not seen it so I could not possibly comment. :)
> 
> I've just read a bit of its Wiki page and take your word for it being
> good. It does not refresh my memory of the stories very well.
> But they took the idea and ran with it.

"The idea"? Actually, it was a pretty big bunch of ideas they took from
Asimov, and distilled into one movie.

> I liked the day of the Triffids. It is a bit dated now but still one to
> put on a list.

Can't comment on that one. Probably had an entirely different title in
Germany.

>> I think what you really want to say is that you simply don't dig Science
>> Fiction movies.
> 
> Yes, they have mostly been a disappointment. My imagination is much
> better than whatever can be put on a screen.

Granted, that's a problem with a lot of movies.

>> Besides, note that I used the comparative (well, I /tried/ to use it
>> anyway). Even among crap there's good solid crap, painfully hard crap,
>> grossly soft crap -- and amorphous plain bullshit.
> 
> I see that you are a scatologist of the highest order.

You know what's coming now, don't you?

https://youtu.be/y6oXW_YiV6g

>>> Not Too Bright? (NTB)
>>
>> Nah, I guess it was more the fascination of first encounter -- the first
>> encounter with a level of crappiness never experienced before.
> 
> You get some dreadfully bad moves that are a joy to watch.
> If you're medicated. ;)

Or not. Remember the dried frog pills I did /not/ take? ;)

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.07.2016 um 18:22 schrieb clipka:

>> I see that you are a scatologist of the highest order.
> 
> You know what's coming now, don't you?
> 
> https://youtu.be/y6oXW_YiV6g

(Coincidently, this seems to be the only piece of music the guy has ever
published that was /not/ entirely spoiled by a crappy rhythm section...)

Post a reply to this message

On 7/24/2016 5:22 PM, clipka wrote:

> "The idea"? Actually, it was a pretty big bunch of ideas they took from
> Asimov, and distilled into one movie.
>

I would be scares to see a Hollywood version of the books that I have 
fond memories of.

>> I liked the day of the Triffids. It is a bit dated now but still one to
>> put on a list.
>
> Can't comment on that one. Probably had an entirely different title in
> Germany.
>

It did have. It was called "Die Triffids". ;)
To be fair, it was a bit before your time. :)

>>> I think what you really want to say is that you simply don't dig Science
>>> Fiction movies.
>>
>> Yes, they have mostly been a disappointment. My imagination is much
>> better than whatever can be put on a screen.
>
> Granted, that's a problem with a lot of movies.

And that's the killer for me. I find it hard to suspend disbelief, in 
the cinema.
Having said that. One of the best films I've seen was a German language 
film called Funny Games.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funny_Games_(1997_film)

>
>>> Besides, note that I used the comparative (well, I /tried/ to use it
>>> anyway). Even among crap there's good solid crap, painfully hard crap,
>>> grossly soft crap -- and amorphous plain bullshit.
>>
>> I see that you are a scatologist of the highest order.
>
> You know what's coming now, don't you?
>


Nope!



> https://youtu.be/y6oXW_YiV6g

Not as poetic as the Glasgow street chant of "Keech bum toley fart, I 
don't care."


>
>>>> Not Too Bright? (NTB)
>>>
>>> Nah, I guess it was more the fascination of first encounter -- the first
>>> encounter with a level of crappiness never experienced before.
>>
>> You get some dreadfully bad moves that are a joy to watch.
>> If you're medicated. ;)
>
> Or not. Remember the dried frog pills I did /not/ take? ;)
>

Well there's your problem. Reality!


'Ave at thee!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WANNqr-vcx0&index=4&list=RDJwVUq6EZEiE

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:

> >> I liked the day of the Triffids. It is a bit dated now but still one to
> >> put on a list.
> >
> > Can't comment on that one. Probably had an entirely different title in
> > Germany.

Full English version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or3ygBd56gg

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.07.2016 um 22:25 schrieb Stephen:

>>> I liked the day of the Triffids. It is a bit dated now but still one to
>>> put on a list.
...
> And that's the killer for me. I find it hard to suspend disbelief, in
> the cinema.

Then, judging from that Triffids movie I'm currently watching, I must
conclude that it's the documentaroid intro that helps you in that
suspension of disbelief -- since the story's premise is about as crappy
as any ;)

Oh, and there seems to be a 2009 remake.

Post a reply to this message

On 7/24/2016 10:33 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 24.07.2016 um 22:25 schrieb Stephen:
>
>>>> I liked the day of the Triffids. It is a bit dated now but still one to
>>>> put on a list.
> ....
>> And that's the killer for me. I find it hard to suspend disbelief, in
>> the cinema.
>
> Then, judging from that Triffids movie I'm currently watching, I must
> conclude that it's the documentaroid intro that helps you in that
> suspension of disbelief -- since the story's premise is about as crappy
> as any ;)
>

It was probably the fact that I was thirteen years old when I saw it. It 
was my first X rated movie.
Other than that I wouldn't take any of my film recommendations seriously.

Except for "Les visiteurs". A 1993 French film that if you liked 
Blackadder you will love. Or maybe not. :)

Or "Le Dîner de Cons" that might suit your humour.

They tickle my fancy.


> Oh, and there seems to be a 2009 remake.
>

So I believe. I remember when it came out.
I want to keep my (false) memories. ;)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.07.2016 um 01:18 schrieb Stephen:

> Except for "Les visiteurs". A 1993 French film that if you liked
> Blackadder you will love. Or maybe not. :)

I think I've seen it, a while ago. Medieval knights somehow thrown into
our time, right?

I don't remember if I ever saw the complete movie, but from what I
remember I did in fact like it.

> Or "Le Dîner de Cons" that might suit your humour.

Don't know it.

>> Oh, and there seems to be a 2009 remake.
> 
> So I believe. I remember when it came out.
> I want to keep my (false) memories. ;)

Can't blame you. The remake appears to be more or less the veggie
variant of the standard Zombie Apocalypse diet they feed you at every
street corner these days.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 07:49:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> I have seen Star Wars. It is one of the films that drive me non linear
> with their orbital mechanics.

Interestingly, we just watched TFA again last night, and my wife and I 
were remarking on the physics of flight they used with the ships.  
Conservation of momentum seemed to be applied in a lot of cases, which 
was interesting to see.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 7/25/2016 6:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 07:49:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> I have seen Star Wars. It is one of the films that drive me non linear
>> with their orbital mechanics.
>
> Interestingly, we just watched TFA again last night, and my wife and I
> were remarking on the physics of flight they used with the ships.
> Conservation of momentum seemed to be applied in a lot of cases, which
> was interesting to see.
>

But did they use orbital mechanics where thrusting forward goes outwards?

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 7/25/2016 1:06 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 25.07.2016 um 01:18 schrieb Stephen:
>
>> Except for "Les visiteurs". A 1993 French film that if you liked
>> Blackadder you will love. Or maybe not. :)
>
> I think I've seen it, a while ago. Medieval knights somehow thrown into
> our time, right?
>
> I don't remember if I ever saw the complete movie, but from what I
> remember I did in fact like it.
>

It must have been good. It kept me awake.


>> Or "Le Dîner de Cons" that might suit your humour.
>
> Don't know it.
>

I think it is worth looking up. A French comedy of errors. Worthy of 
Molière.


>>> Oh, and there seems to be a 2009 remake.
>>
>> So I believe. I remember when it came out.
>> I want to keep my (false) memories. ;)
>
> Can't blame you. The remake appears to be more or less the veggie
> variant of the standard Zombie Apocalypse diet they feed you at every
> street corner these days.
>

Good, I'm glad I missed it.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.07.2016 um 12:49 schrieb Stephen:
> On 7/25/2016 6:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 07:49:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> I have seen Star Wars. It is one of the films that drive me non linear
>>> with their orbital mechanics.
>>
>> Interestingly, we just watched TFA again last night, and my wife and I
>> were remarking on the physics of flight they used with the ships.
>> Conservation of momentum seemed to be applied in a lot of cases, which
>> was interesting to see.
> 
> But did they use orbital mechanics where thrusting forward goes outwards?

Actually, it's a /lot/ more complicated than that.
In this context, I highly recommend Kerbal Space Program ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 7/26/2016 7:21 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 26.07.2016 um 12:49 schrieb Stephen:
>> On 7/25/2016 6:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 07:49:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have seen Star Wars. It is one of the films that drive me non linear
>>>> with their orbital mechanics.
>>>
>>> Interestingly, we just watched TFA again last night, and my wife and I
>>> were remarking on the physics of flight they used with the ships.
>>> Conservation of momentum seemed to be applied in a lot of cases, which
>>> was interesting to see.
>>
>> But did they use orbital mechanics where thrusting forward goes outwards?
>
> Actually, it's a /lot/ more complicated than that.
> In this context, I highly recommend Kerbal Space Program ;)
>

I may have understated my definition. :)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 11:49:48 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 7/25/2016 6:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 07:49:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> I have seen Star Wars. It is one of the films that drive me non linear
>>> with their orbital mechanics.
>>
>> Interestingly, we just watched TFA again last night, and my wife and I
>> were remarking on the physics of flight they used with the ships.
>> Conservation of momentum seemed to be applied in a lot of cases, which
>> was interesting to see.
>>
>>
> But did they use orbital mechanics where thrusting forward goes
> outwards?

I'd have to watch again more closely, but I believe so, at least with the 
smaller ships. The capital ships are a lot harder to tell.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 20:21:39 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Am 26.07.2016 um 12:49 schrieb Stephen:
>> On 7/25/2016 6:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 07:49:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have seen Star Wars. It is one of the films that drive me non
>>>> linear with their orbital mechanics.
>>>
>>> Interestingly, we just watched TFA again last night, and my wife and I
>>> were remarking on the physics of flight they used with the ships.
>>> Conservation of momentum seemed to be applied in a lot of cases, which
>>> was interesting to see.
>> 
>> But did they use orbital mechanics where thrusting forward goes
>> outwards?
> 
> Actually, it's a /lot/ more complicated than that.
> In this context, I highly recommend Kerbal Space Program ;)

+100K ;)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 7/27/2016 12:26 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 11:49:48 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 7/25/2016 6:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 07:49:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have seen Star Wars. It is one of the films that drive me non linear
>>>> with their orbital mechanics.
>>>
>>> Interestingly, we just watched TFA again last night, and my wife and I
>>> were remarking on the physics of flight they used with the ships.
>>> Conservation of momentum seemed to be applied in a lot of cases, which
>>> was interesting to see.
>>>
>>>
>> But did they use orbital mechanics where thrusting forward goes
>> outwards?
>
> I'd have to watch again more closely, but I believe so, at least with the
> smaller ships. The capital ships are a lot harder to tell.
>

I imagine it would be hard to see. Unless it is a set scene.



-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 07:11:22 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 7/27/2016 12:26 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 11:49:48 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/25/2016 6:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 07:49:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have seen Star Wars. It is one of the films that drive me non
>>>>> linear with their orbital mechanics.
>>>>
>>>> Interestingly, we just watched TFA again last night, and my wife and
>>>> I were remarking on the physics of flight they used with the ships.
>>>> Conservation of momentum seemed to be applied in a lot of cases,
>>>> which was interesting to see.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> But did they use orbital mechanics where thrusting forward goes
>>> outwards?
>>
>> I'd have to watch again more closely, but I believe so, at least with
>> the smaller ships. The capital ships are a lot harder to tell.
>>
>>
> I imagine it would be hard to see. Unless it is a set scene.

True.  We were just happy to see conservation of momentum in play as the 
Falcon changed its thrust vectors. :)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

Worst thing for me about SciFi movies is the obligatory inclusion of romance, if
that's the right word to use.

The idea of romance, circa 13th century, was originally about adventures of
knights and their heroics, so I'm not sure who to blame on the later meaning.

Although movies like Metropolis (a favorite of mine) and Forbidden Planet
probably couldn't exist without the romance side. The latter I could imagine
possible without, I guess.

I went to see Star Trek Beyond last week and of course immediately there was the
Spock and Uhura thing going on. I'm used to ignoring the romance factor, but it
was an integral part of the story so ignoring that was impossible. Especially
when I heard whimpering cries from a young girl behind me during the rescue of
Uhura by Spock.

The Day The Earth Stood Still also a classic to me yet so close to being bad
just because of the woman meets alien idea there. Well, more so because there
was another man in her life to begin with. Ugh. The remake really lost me in
that regard and so I was depending on the special effects to balance it out.
Whereas special effects were only rudimentary in the original.

Seriously though, it's as if every movie must be made with a relationship in it.
Not what I'm thinking concerning science fiction.

There was an old SciFi movie The Monolith Monsters about rocks growing out of
control after a meteor hit, now that really had my interest as a kid because of
a more realistic idea of bizarre interactions between space rocks and Earth.
Very plausible to me.

And another movie of the same time, The Blob was likewise of interest for that
reason. The boyfriend+girlfriend relationship in that wasn't anything to me but
maybe it was meant to be crucial for the humanity against monster thing. I
believe it was overshadowed by it being a whole town instead of their
relationship, or "romance".

2001: A Space Odyssey really set aside any romantic notions for that story, not
quite so for the sequel 2010.

Obviously I expect movie genres to stay true to their status, SciFi being only
science and fiction, and unfortunately Metropolis probably didn't help divide
out the current concept of romance.

Another movie, Andromeda Strain was very sterile. Pardon the pun!

Post a reply to this message

Am 02.08.2016 um 19:39 schrieb omniverse:

> Seriously though, it's as if every movie must be made with a relationship in it.
> Not what I'm thinking concerning science fiction.

Most movies you've ever heard of are produced to fit the broadest
possible audience, so you have a bit of everything in there: A
non-everyday background setting (in this case SciFi), action, romance,
mystery, witty dialogs, famous actors, special effects, and nowadays of
course a zombie horde or two.

The trick there is to cater to the legion of people who fall outside the
primary target audience, but would be willing to watch the movie
nonetheless for the sake of accompanying a friend, provided the movie
won't bore them to death entirely.

Now consider that one big share of this secondary target audience is
motivated by love, and it should be no surprise that romance is
ubiquitous in major movies of all genres -- /especially/ in brain-heavy
ones like genuine SciFi.

Post a reply to this message