Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

REB · 2004-08-27 05:47:44

I never saw Dark Star, but the title reminds me of one I forgot. I loved the move "The Black Hole".

I do have a problem with the way movies portray Black Holes. They are not really a hole, they are a sphere. Some are microscopic, and some larger. Material does not spiral down into it like water flowing down a drain (I guess they get this from the flat space model of Black Holes). Material would rotate and fall in much like it would falling onto a star or planet. Once it hits the event horizon, things start to get a little weird. The laws of physics get screwy.

falkor · 2004-08-27 06:38:05

Dark Star is a beautiful sci fi movie but sadly now tremendously dated

I first saw Dark Star back in 1984 and have seen it many times since, didn't particularly like the ending but at least Carpenter built on some tongue in cheek humour to make it less sour of a finish

http://romanticmovies.about.com/library/weekly/blsolarispicsa.htm]

http://www.monkeyboyreview.co.uk/filmre … 12]Solaris

I just saw Solaris and it's currently doing the rounds on SKY MOVIES - don't miss it, really great SCI FI movie

the fella on the left is SNOW and quite honestly, who is the star of the show? him or Clooney? it's a real toss up I tell ya !!

Palomar · 2004-08-27 09:25:48

*My next favorite sci-fi movie is "Alien" -- the first. H.R. Giger's art work (especially within the spacecraft found crashed on that gloomy planet) was astounding. I don't care for Giger's stuff generally (calendars, etc.) but it definitely is eerie, creepy -- sets the mood for sure.

The crew going down into the bowels of the ship, murky lighting, then those rows of slime-covered lumps...approaching them, the "membrane" above, something stirring inside...

Can never forget Veronica Cartright's expression and scream when the first alien began tearing out of her crewmate's chest; that was real, by the way (her reaction) -- the director intentionally set the scene so she'd get sprayed with the fake blood. She didn't know until after the fact. :laugh:

I really liked the Ripley character. She's brave, honest, unflinching in the face of danger and yet retains a level of femininity. Never portrayed as bitchy or catty or weepy, nor "butch" or overbearingly brash. She's not out to compete -- she's simply doing her job and doing it well. Hadn't seen a female role like that in a sci-fi series prior. Lots of good character qualities in Ripley, IMO.

The film overall is the perfect blend of horror and sci-fi.

--Cindy

dicktice · 2004-08-27 11:01:48

The middle parts of "2001: A Space Odyssey," because weightlessness is treated realistically for the first time. Now that digital animation can make it so convincing, I'm more particular about story content, and I'm still waiting for a good "space opera" which stays within known scientific constraints. Craving it, I mean.

REB · 2004-08-27 11:06:45

I think 2001 is the only movie to correctly show that there is no sound in space.

I am forgiving of movies that do show sound in space. I think of it as artistic license. Plus the majority of people would think there is something wrong if an explosion in, lets say Star Wars, was silent.

dicktice · 2004-08-27 11:47:45

Unbelievably, I think "Master and Commander" may be the first (!) movie to provide a time-lag between an explosion and the sound it makes. Star Wars (accepting sound in space) certainly had no time-lag. I know . . . I know, that's an objection that will lead nowhere.

Josh Cryer · 2004-08-29 07:40:16

I'm a huge huge fan of soundless space (ie, space in reality). Any show that has it is really great by me. Only show I know that is that way is Firefly. No sound in space. It was a rule (they instead opted to use musical scores to set the pace, and it worked marvelously).

I've been watching "Space, Above and Beyond" lately (got copy of the whole series; yet another of those "one season then cancelled" scifi shows). It's really quite interesting. Of course, like most scifi, it's very dated, but I can look past that sort of thing. It's sort of like Battlestar Galactica.

But whatever. Alls I can say is that I'm a huge freakin' scifi fan, but the top things that bug me are, 1) psychics, 2) time travel, or 3) sound in space!! (with the exception of the former two if the show itself focuses on those things; Quantum Leap, for example, was time travel that I don't mind).

dicktice · 2004-08-29 11:47:38

I am a great fan of the "time" genre, because it allows present individuals to experience the past and/or future, for fun. I'd like to see a thread which allows us to discuss movie plots other than, or improved upon, what has already been done. Recently, I rented the movie "Frequency" for the second time, which cleverly avoided actual "time travel" and harked back to the now-obsolete hand soldered pre-solidstate electronics I spent so much of my life developing.
Regarding silence in space: Remember the return through the emergency entrance ,as the air filled the airlock-less chamber and sound returned? This adds drama to otherwise ho-hum (to non sci-fi fans) getting about in space.

Palomar · 2004-08-29 16:28:30

*I prefer either cool, serious SCIENCE-oriented sci-fi (IMO a lot of what passes for "sci-fi" today has little to nothing to do with *science*) -or- horror mixed with sci-fi, despite not being much of a fan in the way of the horror genre (except for "Dark Shadows"...don't get me started! But actually DS is more gothic than outright "horror").

Anywho, too many sci-fi flicks nowadays are about special effects it seems. Shallow to nonexistant storyline with lots of flash and razzamatazz instead.

I'd rather have the storyline and "ho hum" or "okay" special effects, thanks.

--Cindy

Mad Grad Student · 2004-08-29 17:38:28

I'm a huge huge fan of soundless space (ie, space in reality). Any show that has it is really great by me. Only show I know that is that way is Firefly. No sound in space. It was a rule (they instead opted to use musical scores to set the pace, and it worked marvelously).

Ah, Firefly. Yet another excellent show that just didn't stand a chance in the hands of the Fox Network. Here we have a show with no sound in space (Excellent decision on the part of the producers), ships that actually look like real spaceships (Everything was breaking down, wires all over the place like Mir), and female characters that aren't merely sex objects placed for ratings boosting, and it's dropped in favor of Fast Lane. God knows what that show was about, but it aired about four episodes more than Firefly before being cancelled. If they had only aired the episodes in sequence, or if it had been picked up by UPN or Spike instead maybe it would have stood a chance, but not with Fox in charge. Anyways, I'm doing my history homework right so I probably don't have time to google it, does anyone know if there's a DVD set of the show or something?

It's funny how opinions can differ so wildly about one subject. Some of these reccomendations I agree with, others strongly the opposite. I couldn't stand Blade Runner when I saw it, it just dragged on and on and on without anything seeming to happen like a Stanley Kubrik film on Ambien, and it was impossible to tell was going on. Then again, I only saw it once about four years ago and that was the director's cut so perhaps I shouldn't be making an opinion about it.

I really ought to get back to work, so instead of rating them, I'll just list my favorite sci-fi movies in no particular order.

Planet of the Apes (Even today, great commentary on issues like Stem Cell research and Evolution)
2001 (Only movie that gets sound/fire/pressure right in space)
2010 (Much more coherent than 2001, and more fun if not as profound)
Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Kahn (Excellent music, excellent actors, all around great movie)
Star Trek 4 (Absolutely hilarious, good fun with Leonard Nemoy)
Star Trek: First Contact (Arguably best of ST movies)
Tremors (Do I need to explain this? Burt, get your elephant gun! :laugh: )
The Matrix (Awesome concept for a movie, if tainted by anime)
Dr. Strangelove (Not really sci-fi per say, but great movie)

As for shows:

Star Trek: TNG (All-around excellent show)
Star Trek: Voyager (Not as good as TNG, but cool)
Farscape (Great through the second season, then crashed and burned)
Firefly (Only show that gets sound/fire/pressure right in space)

That's all I can think of right now, but I'm sure I'll remember more later. I can't stand the Star Wars movies. The physics, plot structures, storylines, even the set design is all egregiously flawed. Star Wars isn't sci-fi, it's fantasy set in space. Here's a plot synopsis: one side is good, the other side is evil, the good side wins because all is just. Oh, puhleease! That's an oscar-wining concept, for a second grader. I know, physics and realism isn't everything, but when it gets as bad as it is in the Star Wars movies, it just makes the movie unwatchable.

I don't think I need to say how tragically awful Armageddon is to anyone who's seen it. Man, that's the kind of movie that, as you watch it, you can actually feel your brain cells dying. If you want an actually review, go to the Intuitor Insultingly Stupid Movie physics site or Bad Astronomy. The writer of the Bad Astronomy review puts it best, "I would rather look at the Sun through the Hubble Space Telescope than watch this movie again."

Going back to the TV shows, it's interesting how polarized much of sci-fi is on the small screen. Generally it falls into one of two categories; either a "Star Trek-class" show, with big, sleek, pretty ships and epic missions or a "Firefly-class" show, with ugly little bugs of ships barely staying alive just trying to get by. Personally, I prefer the latter, it just seems more interesting when you can't rely on replicators and money is a real-world issue.

But hey, that's just me. :;):

Josh Cryer · 2004-08-30 05:32:32

Well, Firefly got it right for one reason; the big nation state was controlling everything. All technology, all food, all medicine, everything (well, okay, almost all). If you want something, you have to deal with the big nation state.

And it made sense, too, which is what was so remarkable. I'm a very very picky person when it comes to scifi. I mean, no show can really get away from my criticisms, but seriously.

I've criticized Star Trek for "exploding conduits" before (I mean, circuit breakers have existed since the dawn of electricity, how could a highly advanced space ship not have them?), and it was really ridiculous how sometimes it's impossible to replicate something, while other times a cure for this awful disease that wiped out billions is cureable in a few hours of analysis.

But Firefly is different. Yes, diseases are easily cureable, but they exist out on the outer planets because the big nation state could give a damn less about the people out there (and since they control the manufacture of medicine, it's pretty much written in stone). Remember Ariel? (The one where they robbed the hospital.) This was made quite apparent in that movie. "What about the people who need the medicine?" "They'll have it restocked in a few hours, no problem." Not explained away by some magical scientific problem, explained by the political dynamics of the state which they were living under!

And really, I actually attribute everything in Firefly, every criticism I would have for other shows, to the political dynamics of their society. Firefly is a rinky dinky ship (I would normally think that a space ship of the future wasn't so falling apart); probably beacuse the state impeeded technological development, etc, so it makes sense for it to be designed the way it is.

dicktice · 2004-08-30 08:16:58

Reminds me of another irritating cliche: Futuristic control panels that go up in flames when a spaceship is attacked: That went out when reostats and power switches were replaced by solidstate control electronics--decades ago.

REB · 2004-08-30 08:34:20

I foresee a day when we have direct wireless interface from computers directly to our brain. Keyboards, mouse and other input devices will be obsolete, as will output devices like monitors.

But beware! Advertisers will try beaming spam to our brains.

Showing people sitting there while their brains are communicating with a ships computer would be boring. Remember Hollywood likes to entertain. That is why computers and other equipment always have lots of flashing lights.

Rxke · 2004-08-30 12:27:35

http://www.starwreck.com/]Starwreck

Actually very impressive what a group of volunteers are doing... I downloaded all the 'films' and it's going from horrible CGI to passable stuff (with still horrible acting, heh...) But the trailers for the latest film look quite impressive...

http://www.starwreck.com/oldies/]Here you can D/L some of their movies they made so far..

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-30 12:50:47

Showing people sitting there while their brains are communicating with a ships computer would be boring. Remember Hollywood likes to entertain. That is why computers and other equipment always have lots of flashing lights.

Precisely. Sci-fi, particularly in film and television, isn't about giving us a working glimpse of a coherent future world, it's about entertainment and sometimes, when done well, social commentary. To make it truly believable in all aspects would be almost unwatchable, some liberties need to be taken.

It just so happens that I've been working with some people (Detroit area film/video production people sick of doing car ads and local actors, mostly) on a low-budget sci-fi film. When you actually get into the process of trying to translate ideas to the screen you discover the problems. Some of them glaring.

Still, we're trying to keep things as realistic as possible, no exploding consoles, no sound in space, and one of my peeves no brightly lit ships in deep space!

Palomar · 2004-08-30 18:10:36

and one of my peeves no brightly lit ships in deep space!

*Hmmmmm. Cobra, why do I get the feeling you prefer those dark, hint of grime, hardware-store looking sci-fi sets?

I really love the sets of the original Star Trek. Neat, orderly, soft colors, clean as a whistle, a touch of elegance. Yeah, I know... But still. And though I've never had a manicure in my life and don't fuss much with my hair, I have to say there's a certain charm in how the female crewmembers had perfectly manicured and polished nails and those elaborate, completely IMpractical hair-do's. :laugh: Not to mention the mini-dresses. Ah...for yesteryear's ridiculous charms.

Coincidentally, I also like the interior of the "Nostromo" of "Alien." And not just because of the storyline. I get tired of sci-fi sets with grids, wires, chains, oil, grime, dirty uniforms, people screaming at each other, ugly tattoos...
I'm like: Hell's Angels in Space -- give me a break!

--Cindy :laugh:

Josh Cryer · 2004-08-30 18:14:03

What's it about?

I was reading the Celestia forums and it was noted that "planets and ships far away from the Sun wouldn't be very lit in the outer solar system."

The developers response? "Eyes adapt to light levels, so where ever you are, objects will look just as bright."

My question; is this true for all of the galaxy? (I would think so.) Perhaps not in deep intergalactic space, but I dunno. We need a scientific opinion.

BWhite · 2004-08-30 18:27:43

Still, we're trying to keep things as realistic as possible, no exploding consoles, no sound in space, and one of my peeves no brightly lit ships in deep space!

See first, shoot first, kill first. Total EmCon - - emissions control.

Radiate nothing, light, radar, radio, x-rays. Nothing.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-30 18:47:16

Hmmmmm. Cobra, why do I get the feeling you prefer those dark, hint of grime, hardware-store looking sci-fi sets?

Actually I've always liked the "impeccably clean, metallic but intentionally underlit" sets. I really like that dark, moody neo-gothic "Event Horizon" sort of look.

Somehow I don't see "Cobra's Space Navy" being flooded with volunteers.

was reading the Celestia forums and it was noted that "planets and ships far away from the Sun wouldn't be very lit in the outer solar system."
The developers response? "Eyes adapt to light levels, so where ever you are, objects will look just as bright."

Only to a point. Get out in interstellar space and it's dark. Your eyes only adjust so much to the night, same sort of thing.

Not that I've checked it out first hand, of course.

See first, shoot first, kill first. Total EmCon - - emissions control.
Radiate nothing, light, radar, radio, x-rays. Nothing.

Quite right. With no cover it becomes all the more important.
If space-stalking is your game.

Mulling back a bit...

Star Wars isn't sci-fi, it's fantasy set in space. Here's a plot synopsis: one side is good, the other side is evil, the good side wins because all is just. Oh, puhleease!

Yep, Star Wars is fantasy with a sci-fi cloak. Actually on many levels it's a western that just happens to be set in space. I know, a romp through 1930's space opera. Still, I've always had a fondness for it.

Once I watched it treating it as "pro-rebel propaganda" put out to further a particular spin on the events in question, hence the archetype good/evil thing. I'd actually like to reshoot Star Wars from the other angle, law and order, peacekeeping Empire protecting its citizens from a band of terrorists, some trying to restore a monarchy.Luke Skywalker as Che.

Euler · 2004-08-30 18:52:00

The developers response? "Eyes adapt to light levels, so where ever you are, objects will look just as bright."
My question; is this true for all of the galaxy? (I would think so.) Perhaps not in deep intergalactic space, but I dunno. We need a scientific opinion.

The eyes can adapt some, but there is a limit. The amount of light you would have to see by (inside the galaxy but far from any star) would be about the same as you would have on a clear, moonless night far away from any cities on Earth. That is not enough to light up a ship very much.

However, that is only if you are limited to using human eyes. Using a telescope, especially with CCD cameras and long exposures, the image can be made to appear much brighter.

Palomar · 2004-08-30 20:54:22

Star Wars isn't sci-fi, it's fantasy set in space. Here's a plot synopsis: one side is good, the other side is evil, the good side wins because all is just. Oh, puhleease! That's an oscar-wining concept, for a second grader. I know, physics and realism isn't everything, but when it gets as bad as it is in the Star Wars movies, it just makes the movie unwatchable.

*Our generation gap is showing.

Well...(not putting you down, okay? Just want to point a few things out; give some perspective:) you weren't around in 1977, so actually it's a bit more complicated (the incredible popularity of the movie) than that. "Star Wars" had some of -the- greatest special effects scenes ever, to that point in time. My sister and I weren't allowed to attend movies, but I recall enough of friends' talk and movie reviews on TV to know that most big movies of the time were akin to "American Graffiti" and "Smoky & The Bandit." Or melodramatic "here, now" films. Ho-hum stuff for older folks (except for thrillers and horror like "The Exorcist" and "Carrie"). Star Wars definitely spawned a revolution in sci-fi including getting Star Trek off the shelf and into theaters. Then the Alien films, etc.

The Lord of the Rings had had a strong cult following since it was first published, and "Star Wars" echoed it somewhat with *mystical* adventure. This was pointed out. Also, some churches condemned the "Eastern religious" aspect -- which fueled the fire. But the film stood on its own strength of course.

You had to have "been there" to really understand the draw, the explosive power of the film (culturally, metaphysically, and etc.).

As TV went, Battlestar Galactica was still a year or two in the future, the 1st Star Trek movie and "Alien" were unheard of, and the biggest sci-fi hits prior were YEARS prior -- 1971's "Silent Running" and "2001: A Space Odyssey" in 1968.

Nowadays even TV *commercials* can have more special effects than TV sci-fi shows of the 1970s! And today's sci-fi TV shows (and the way they've basically been since you've become a viewer)? Lucas could have only dreamed of having computer animation and all the glitzy extras when shooting in 1976.

Hope that helps explain it (perspective) a bit more.

--Cindy

Mad Grad Student · 2004-08-30 21:03:41

Once I watched it treating it as "pro-rebel propaganda" put out to further a particular spin on the events in question, hence the archetype good/evil thing. I'd actually like to reshoot Star Wars from the other angle, law and order, peacekeeping Empire protecting its citizens from a band of terrorists, some trying to restore a monarchy.Luke Skywalker as Che.

It's interesting, isn't it, that in Star Wars the good guys are actually a terrorist organization!? I wonder if a movie like that could be popular today. :hm:

Most likely yes, as everyone seems to be fond of the nice clean black-and-white divide between good an evil. I find it more interesting when things aren't so clear-cut, however, that's one of the great things about shows like Firefly. Yes, the bad guys don't have the good guys best interests at heart, but they're not evil. Nobody ever wants to be on or thinks that they're the evil side. Hitler didn't convince millions of people to fall in line by telling them to embrace the power of the dark side, he told them to join the good side, the Nazis!

I'm not bad-mouthing Star Wars because of its special effects, those aren't necessary for a good movie (Although it helps), I don't like it because the story of the franchise just seems weak IMHO.

Euler · 2004-08-30 22:45:43

Ah, Firefly. Yet another excellent show that just didn't stand a chance in the hands of the Fox Network. Here we have a show with no sound in space (Excellent decision on the part of the producers), ships that actually look like real spaceships (Everything was breaking down, wires all over the place like Mir), and female characters that aren't merely sex objects placed for ratings boosting, and it's dropped in favor of Fast Lane. God knows what that show was about, but it aired about four episodes more than Firefly before being cancelled. If they had only aired the episodes in sequence, or if it had been picked up by UPN or Spike instead maybe it would have stood a chance, but not with Fox in charge. Anyways, I'm doing my history homework right so I probably don't have time to google it, does anyone know if there's a DVD set of the show or something?

Yes, there is a DVD set of the show(you can find it http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ … as1]here.) There is also a Firefly http://www.serenitymovie.com/]movie(called Serenity), that is scheduled to be released April 22, 2005.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-31 05:45:07

It's interesting, isn't it, that in Star Wars the good guys are actually a terrorist organization!? I wonder if a movie like that could be popular today.

Well, the 'good guys' in Star Trek are a heavily militarized human society that culturally dominates other races.

Most likely yes, as everyone seems to be fond of the nice clean black-and-white divide between good an evil. I find it more interesting when things aren't so clear-cut, however, that's one of the great things about shows like Firefly.

You need some variety, we're talking about mass-market entertainment after all.

Or in other words, sometimes I'm in the mood to play chess. Other times I'm leaning more towards DoomIII. With cheats. Doesn't necessarily mean one is inherently better than the other in every measurable sense.

Your Star Wars gripes are all legit, and I still like it. Part of it might be that I don't watch anything, fiction or otherwise as raw documented events. Everything is an interpretation of events. Thinking of multiple sides to every story seems to make it all more interesting.

Don't even get me started on "Lord of the Rings," ultra-conservative monarchist insurgents running around... and I'm sure those Haradrim woke up and thought "We should go fight for an evil dark lord of destruction and plunge the world into torment!"

Palomar · 2004-08-31 06:03:23

It's interesting, isn't it, that in Star Wars the good guys are actually a terrorist organization!? I wonder if a movie like that could be popular today. :hm:

*What?

Are we talking about the same "Star Wars"?

Darth Vader and his minions were a nice, misunderstood bunch of guys who really had the best interests of their galaxy at heart; Luke & Co should have submitted to them?

Darth Vader was the terrorist. The Rebel Alliance was the reaction -- trying to survive, retain their freedoms and independence, etc.

Unless, of course, one considers persons involved in the pockets of resistance against Adolph Hitler as having been "the terrorists." :hm:

::shakes head::

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2004-08-27 05:47:44

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#102 2004-08-27 06:38:05

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#103 2004-08-27 09:25:48

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#104 2004-08-27 11:01:48

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#105 2004-08-27 11:06:45

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#106 2004-08-27 11:47:45

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#107 2004-08-29 07:40:16

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#108 2004-08-29 11:47:38

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#109 2004-08-29 16:28:30

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#110 2004-08-29 17:38:28

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#111 2004-08-30 05:32:32

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#112 2004-08-30 08:16:58

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#113 2004-08-30 08:34:20

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#114 2004-08-30 12:27:35

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#115 2004-08-30 12:50:47

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#116 2004-08-30 18:10:36

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#117 2004-08-30 18:14:03

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#118 2004-08-30 18:27:43

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#119 2004-08-30 18:47:16

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#120 2004-08-30 18:52:00

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#121 2004-08-30 20:54:22

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#122 2004-08-30 21:03:41

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#123 2004-08-30 22:45:43

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#124 2004-08-31 05:45:07

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

#125 2004-08-31 06:03:23

Re: Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . .

Board footer